Water Man Spouts

Saturday, April 29, 2006

The Protocols of Rachel Corrie

Last week I had the opportunity to watch Marc Levin's documentary, "Protocols of Zion," on HBO. The 2005 film explores the myth that no Jews died in the Twin Towers on 9-11. It also exposes some of the anti-Semitism that remains, like a stubborn virus that infects our society.
Marc Levin is, in my opinion, one of the most talented artists in America. His 1993 film "The Last Party," about the Clinton campaign, was a treat for everyone who loves politics. In other works, he confronts controversial issues head-on; these include "Soldiers in the Army of God," and especially "The Execution Machine: Texas Death Row." But I think that "Protocols of Zion" is his most powertful film.
Levin allows everyone an opportunity to speak in the film. He goes well out of his way to seek out, and provide a fair chance for people to put forth their beliefs about the absolutely incoorect theory that "the Jews" were responsible for 9-11, and that they "took care of their own" by makingsure no Jews went to work in the Twin Towers that day.
Hatred is an illness. In the case of most illnesses, a person knows they are sick. In a few, such as drug addiction, the victim is not aware that they are ill, because the disease lies to them. Hatred of groups of people, be it for concepts like race, religion, sex/orientation, are likewise diseases that lie to the victim that plays host to them. Thus, those in Levin's film who are sick, are totally invested in the lie that eats their being like a cancer.
This type of disease is very dangerous, and not only to the hosts themselves. They pose a threat to the greater society, because they must deny the truth, as they spread their lies. And the denial of truth always leads to attempts to forcefully suppress those voices in society that speak the truth.
There may be no better example of this than what happened in 1967, when the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke at the Riverside Church in New York City. In his classic sppech, "A Time to Break Silence " (aka "Beyond Vietnam"), Martin bravely spoke out against the war in Vietnam. He connected the hatred and violence that was taking place in SouthEast Asia, with the racial hatred and spiritual poverty found in the streets of America. And he attempted to expose the root causes of that hatred, as what he called "the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism."
In "Let the Trumpet Sound," author Stephen Oates writes that King's "address provoked a fusillade of abuse from all sides. The Jewish War Veterans of America blasted it as 'an extremist tirade' that belabored an 'ugly parallel' with the Germans, revealed 'an ignorance of the facts,' pandered to Ho Chi Minh, and insulted 'the intelligence of all Americans.' The FBI claimed that Stanley Levison had shaped if not written the Riverside speech, and bureau documents denigrate King as 'a traitor to his country and to his race.' .... In media circles, Newsweek accused King of plunging in 'over his head' and mixing evangelical passion with 'simplistic political judgement,' which indicated that he had abandoned his dream of an integrated America in favor of a country 'in which a race conscious minority dictated foreign policy'." (page 421)
On March 22, 2006, Cindy and Craig Corrie attended a service at that same Riverside Church in Manhattan, for a memorial service honoring their daughter Rachel. Three years earlier, Rachel Corrie, 23, traveled from her home to Rafah, in the Gaza Strip, to engage in non-violent protest of the Israeli destruction of the homes of Palestinian families.She was crushed to death by a bulldozer.
Rachel's parents allowed her diaries and e-mails to be worked into a book and play, "My Name is Rachel Corrie." The play did very well in England, and was scheduled to come to the off-Broadway New York Theater Workshop. However, before it was staged, the theater canceled it "indefinitely," due to protests from sponsors and other groups. The details of what The Nation called "An American Inquisition" in their editorial, can be found in the article "My Name is Rachel Corrie: Too Hot for New York." (April 3,2006) There are also two very good articles in the May/June edition of Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. ( http://www.wrmea.com )
The Washington Report's articles are: {1} "We Are Them.They Are Us." A Celebration of the Writings of Rachel Corrie, by Laura Angela Bagnetto; and {2} Rachel Corrie: Will Americans Get to Hear The Voice of an American Anne Frank?, by Delinda Hanley. They are moving articles, that make a strong case that Rachel Corrie's voice is much like Anne Frank's. Hanley writes, "The story of Anne Frank's life and death resonate with people of all ages and backgrounds. Anne's diary provides a vehicle for people to learn from Europe's Holocaust and examine prejudice, persecution, discrimination, hatred and violence."
Rachel's words offer us that same opportunity. Sadly, like King's Riverside address, they also cause those infected with the disease of hatred to lash out in the same ugly way. The people who have worked to silence this brave and idealistic young woman's voice are no different than the hateful people in Levin's "The Protocols of Zion." I hope that Marc Levin will make a documentary on Rachel Corrie. It may be the most important work he could do today.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Let's Play Hardball

In the 48 hours since I posted "Leaks in Perception," about the relationship between progressives/democrats and the media in regard to the Plame scandal, a couple significant events have taken place. The first was Karl Rove testifying for the 5th time in the on-going grand jury investigation; the second was today's decision by Judge Walton, rejecting the Team Libby motion to dismiss the charges against Scooter.
There has been a tremendous amount of discussion about the significance of Rove's situation. I've enjoyed watching the coverage on the tv, reading articles in the papers, and especially viewing discussions on the internet. I've participated in a few of the discussions on one of the progressive forums, including some where there has been heated disagreement on a report by TruthOut's Jason Leopold on the possibility that Rove and his attorney Robert Luskin had received a "target letter" from Patrick Fitzgerald.
The majority of those discussions were focused on interpreting what facts were known, and what may have been speculation. A few were unfortunately negative, and concentrated on personal attacks.I was reminded of some of the experiences of people in the Civil Rights movement, as well as in Native American sovereignty work.
A lot of the conflicts in those areas was the result of people who infiltrated the various groups, with the goal of disrupting. But many more conflicts were rooted in petty personality-based disputes. This is human nature.
I worked in human services for many years. I enjoyed that type of work, because I like people, and am fascinated by "human nature." But, to be honest, there were some people that I encountered over the decades that I did not like. (And some certainly did not like me.) If you have a co-worker you don't like, you have a couple choices. You can allow personality-based disputes to contaminate the quality of your work, or you can rise above that, and go on the principle that your work is more important than personality. Some of the best work I did was in cooperation with people that I was not friends with.
Likewise, in doing work as a "community activist," I have had plenty of experience working with individuals that I didn't particularly like. There were also agencies that I believed were incompetent. But as Vine Deloria Jr. noted, the incompetence of individuals and agencies is not often a mortal sin.
I am hoping that we could look at one individual who a number of people on the progressive internet sites I read seem to dislike. Chris Matthews, from MSNBC's Hardball, who is unpopularly knows as "Tweety" on the Democratic Underground, is a case in point. For fun, let's look at Mr. Matthews in terms of his work on the Plame scandal.
Ambassador Joseph Wilson starts the first page of his book "The Politics of Truth" with his conversation where Matthews told him about Karl Rove telling him "Wilson's wife is fair game." Wilson noted that before "abruptly hanging up, Matthews added: 'I will confirm that if asked'."
Later in the book, Wilson recounts telling Tim Russert on Meet the Press that a "respectable reporter" had told him about Rove's "retailing the Novak article." This was before Wilson had publicly identified Matthews as his source. (page 373)
It is interesting to compare what Wilson says about Matthews, to what some seemingly intelligent bloggers attribute to Wilson. On a January 11, 2006 essay on the Huffington Post, David Fiderer expresses his personal dislike of Mathews' personality, knocks his ability as a journalist, and then projects his emotions onto Wilson with statements like, "According to Joe Wilson, Chris Matthews is a guy who can't keep a secret or a promise," and "Matthews has every reason to resent Wilson." Again, the conflict does not exist between Wilson and Matthews; it is located between Mr. Fiderer's ears.
A rationale look at Matthews' work was found on Arianna Huffington's "Chris Matthews and the Power of Repetition." She did not concentrate on Mr. Matthews' alleged tendency to interrupt guests on his show. Instead, she discussed his "acting as a village explainer, using the dramatic example of Sept. 8, 2002," to illustrate how the administration used the media to sell the war in Iraq. On that Sunday, Judith Miller had a front-page report in the New York Times based on misinformation provided to her from Scooter Libby. That morning, high-ranking administration officials including VP Cheney, Powell, and Rice went on the morning talk shows, and used Miller's article as a reference in spreading the Libby lies.
Matthews appreciates that power of repetition. His reporting on the Plame scandal has used that same tactic by showing, over and over, that the administration's lies about WMD were used to convince the country to support the invasion of Iraq; that Joseph Wilson had evidence that the administration had information that indicated Iraq did not have the WMD programs; that the OVP conducted an underhanded attack on Wilson; that VP Cheney talked with Libby about {a} Wilson's wife working for the Agency, and {b} tactics to use in attacking Wilson in the press, including leaking the NIE.
Hardball has featured the high-quality reporting of David Shuster, as well as a variety of guests who have knowledge of the Plame scandal. Matthews has been hammering VP Cheney more than any other corporate media journalist. Consider the following examples, from his October 27, 2005 show:
Matthews: "How does this not go back directly to the vice president? If the vice president got her identity, gave it to his chief of staff, the chief of staff gave it to Judy Miller, isn't the chain of custody complete?"
"You know, when you go back and look at the record, it isn't just about a leak, this story; it's about the war in Iraq and how the case was made and roles played and the method of operations of people like the vice president's chief of staff. And you realize that he was leaking to the New York Times for weekend use so the stories would run on Sunday, so that the vice president, who was already scheduled to appear, would go on Sunday television and say, 'Did you see that New York Times piece this morning?' to Tim Russert."
Last week, Matthews had a gentleman named Michael Smerconish on. Mr. Smerconish said thaty no one outside of the "beltway" was interested in the Plame scandal, and that it was "too esoteric" for common folk to understand. Rev. Al Sharpton responded that people understand that people like Rove and Libby will "lie when the truth will hurt them." And Matthews told Smerconish that his show's ratings rose whenever he was covering current events in the Plame scandal. He made clear that a growing number of Americans are very interested in the case.
Chris Matthews may be an individual that some people simply do not like. Hardball does not do as well on other issues as it does on the Plame scandal. In that sense, it might be fair to view him as the head of an agency that is frequently incompetent. But that is not a mortal sin. And at a time when progressives/democrats should want more Americans to hear reports on the administration's participation in the Plame scandal, we should take close note that Hardball's ratings go up when he covers the story. The management at MSNBC surely does.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Leaks in Perception

Leaks In Perception (Unpopular Essay #24)

If April showers bring May flowers, the amount of controversy over government "leaks" that has been in the news this month may bring a number of controversies to full bloom in the next few weeks. These cases, which are closely related, include Condi Rice getting a subpoena in the neocon/AIPAC spy scandal; Mary McCarthy being fired by the CIA; Team Libby's attempts to force the media to become a side-show in Scooter's upcoming convictions; and Team Libby's admitting to Judge Walton that they have bent, if not broken, his orders to not attempt to try Scooter's case in the media.
The relationship between the government and the media is not, of course, new. The fact that there is a potential for there to be tension between the government and a free press was recognized by the Founding Fathers in Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution. At that time, the "free press" was just that: newspapers and other forms of the written word. It is worth noting that this implies a support of active information gathering, as both reading and writing challenge one to be an active participant in the competition of ideas.
That process began to change with the introduction of the radio. In "The Communications Gap" (the first chapter of "We Talk, You Listen"), Vine Deloria Jr. notes that while few Americans recognized it at the time, a process began in which the competition of ideas was reduced. Rather than having "equally valid interpretations of problems by sociologists, economists, historians, political scientists, and religious leaders, the solutions to problems has been a simple compromise" made between a limited group that exercises "naked power .... to define policies." (page 18)
Both Deloria and Jerry Mander, in his 1991 "In the Absence of the Scared," quote Marshall McLuhan's famous "the medium is the message" to illustrate how the modern technology changed the way Americans receive and interpret the "news." Mander takes us from radio to television. He notes that, at that time, 75% of commercial network television was paid for by the 100 largest American corporations. Considering that there were more than 450,000 American corporations at that time, he concluded that this further restricted the competition of ideas. More, television works in a way that makes those viewing it into more passive consumers of what is being spoon-fed to them by those 100 corporations, than the active information gatherers the Founding Fathers recognized as essential for democracy.
Thus, a growing number of Americans became more inclined to get their "news" from tv, and to less inclined to read. Mander quoted reports indicating that 95% of American families watched some TV every day; that the average home had the tv on for 8 hours per day; that the average child between the ages of two and five watched between 3 and 4 hours a day; the average adult watched 5 hours; and the average adult over the age of fifty-five watched 6 hours of tv a day.
(Home computers have changed this. However, it is worth noting that a significant part of the appeal of the computer screen comes in the way of graphics and bold colors that -- like tv -- promotes a more passive, and less active form of information gathering. Even on political forums, there is frequently an emphasis on "entertainment" rather than substance.)
One result of the changes in the way people receive and process the news has been a decline in people's active participation in the political process. The percentage of Americans who vote is an obvious example. For years, many groups in America had to struggle to gain the right to vote. Today, it is not just that people take this right for granted -- they have too often become a passive observer of politics, and frequently do not even see the connection between what the politicians do in Washington, DC, and in their own life. People say, "I'm not into politics," as if it is a television show. They willingly give up their right to have a say, because they have tolerated, accepted, and finally adapted to the definitions of those 100 corporations.
The war in Iraq, which was widely supported by the American public, had been promoted in the media by the White House Iraq Group using the same tactics that advertisers use to sell other products. However, there has been a dose of "reality tv" in a literal sense in regard to this war: even though the corporate media has attempted to hide the coffins of dead American soldiers, the cost of this war has begun to rise to the surface of the public's consciousness. Those quick snippets of the voices of reason, expressed by the progressive democrats, has acted like a subliminal message.
The conflict on the political stage involves the tool that is known as "leaking." It can be done in many ways. When Condi Rice is accused by attorneys for the AIPAC spies of having leaked classified information to Rosen an Weissman, that is one type. Their attorneys have asked Judge Ellis to drop the charges against them, because they say that "type of backchannel exchanges between government officials, lobbyists, and the press are part and parcel of how Washington works." ( "Lawyer: Rice Leaked Defense Information"; Newsday; 4-21-06) Some are pretending that this is a case involving the 1st Ammendment, and freedom of the press. Yet we know that it is actually a case involving government officials leaking classified information to two people who were working as part of a private intelligence group, who then leaked the same information to a foreign government. No reporters have been charged. It is a case of espionage, not freedom of the press.
In the related cases, there is a conflict between those in the Bush administration who were lying to the public about the reasons they were bringing us to war in Iraq, and those who attempted to be honest. Libby leaked misinformation to Miller, who co-wrote a work of fiction for the New York Times. They timed it for a Sunday when four administration officials went on the morning news shows, and who then said, "Well, it was reported in the New York Times that ...." This is a classic form of manipulation.
Mary McCarthy was fired for "leaking" information on the illegal tactics that the Bush administration is using in their "war on terror.An article by Larry Johnson ("The Firing of Mary McCarthy") on TPM Cafe and TruthOut (4-22) should have Americans wondering if Mary McCarthy actually leaked any information, or if she is taking the weight for the administration's sins. (If by chance she did leak the information, I believe that she should have our respect. A "whistle-blower" is the government worker who exposes corruption by leaking it to the press. One thinks of the Pentagon Papers, or the "Deep Throat" operation to expose the crimes of Watergate.)
The most interesting "leak" case remains the Plame scandal. Much of the scandal involves the WHIG's attempts to damage war critic Joseph Wilson by leaking information to the media about his wife. The reaction to their activities was not what they anticipated.
"Without leaks," Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff wrote, "arguably, the U.S. government could not function. Trial balloons could not be floated, political scores could not be settled, wrongs would go unexposed, policy could not be made." ("Secrets and Leaks"; Newsweek; 10-6-03) This pompous statement reflects one way that some people risk fooling themselves, of course, and illustrates the self-righteousness of those who would break the law in order to settle "political scores." The WHIG would be surprised by two responses to their leak: the Fitzgerald appointment, and the way the democratic left embraced Joe Wilson.
The corporate media was caught up in Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the scandal. Several were served subpoenas, and testified in front of the grand jury. Two fought the subpoenas in court, in a case that did involve 1st Ammendment issues. The administration and some in the media attempted to define it as solely a free press issue. The federal courts disagreed, however, and when Judith Miller refused to obey a court order, she was incarcerated. When she was released almost 3 months later, the public found out that Judith had not been answering to her editors, but instead was promoting the Rumsfeld/Cheney agenda.
The administration's supporters in the corporate media attempted to manipulate the public's perception of the scandal whenever tensions rose. In July, 2005, when Matt Cooper exposed the extent that Karl Rove was involved in the scandal, the Wall Street Journal "proclaimed Karl Rove the new Coleen Rowley -- a whistleblower just trying to help reporters sort out Joe Wilson's bad information." ("Plamegate Turns DC Upside Down"; CBS; 7-14-05)
Last week, attorneys from the New York Times, NBC, and Time argued that "freedom of the press" would be harmed if they were forced to fully cooperate with Scooter Libby's defense requests. They described the Team Libby tactics as desperate attempts to "cast a wide net" in a "fishing expedition." Lawyers for Judith Miller were among those asking Judge Walton to quash the subpoenas.
Also, in response to Judge Walton's 4-13-06 Order to Show Cause, in which Walton asked both Team Libby and Fitzgerald to address "several occasions" when "information has been disseminated to the press by counsel, which has included not only public statements, but also the dissemination of material that had not been filed on the public docket," Libby's attorneys were forced to admit to leaking to the media. This was after they argued against Fitzgerald for saying he had concerns with providing Team Libby with classified information.
In the weeks and months ahead, progressive democrats and others on the political left will have the opportunity to use these "leak cases" to increase the public's awareness of the criminal activities of the Bush administration, including the threats they pose to the U.S. Constitution. It will require that we become active participants in information gathering, and that we work to get that information into all forms of media -- including the corporate media. In the next couple of weeks, I will be discussing some of the tactics that I think are useful. I am hoping that others will contribute their thoughts on this subject as well.
We can become the medium that conveys the message. And it's the same message that the Founding Fathers communicated through that Bill of Rights.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Thirteen Days

One of life's greatest pleasures is turning off the tv and computer, and reading a good book. This weekend, the Guernsey Memorial Library in Norwich, NY held its annual book sale. The selection of reading material I was able to obtain provides not only a welcome break from George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Sean Hannitys .... but a stark contrast, as well.
The first book I picked up was a copy of Senator Robert Kennedy's "Thirteen Days." This copy of the 1969 book was still in its original wrapper. I still have a tie clip that Robert handed out on the courthouse steps, a couple hundred feet away from the library, in 1964. It felt good to open this crisp, like-new book, and to read one of Robert's favorite quotes. It is from Keat's "The Fall of Hyperion":
"Who feel the giant agony of the world,
And more, like slaves to poor humanity,
Labor for mortal good ...."
As the television has been reporting on Bush, Rice, and other administration officials attempts to confront Iran on its nuclear program, a number of reasonable people on the internet have noted how different the Kennedy brothers were in their approach to potentially deadly conflict. As I read the first chapters, the differences in character between the Kennedys and Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld stand out.
The second book is W. Averell Harriman's 1975 "Special Envoy." The book is described as the memories of last of the major participants in WW2's highest levels of planning. Although I have never cared for Harriman, he was certainly one of the most influential American politicians from the past century. Again, while one may not approve of his poliicies, he was clearly far more capable than the clowns in the present administration. (I also find it interesting that he autographed the book, and wrote a brief note to a local political figure in it.)
Next was "Diaries of Mario M. Cuomo: The Campaign for Governor," from 1984. I have always admired Governor Cuomo, and believe that he delivered one of the greatest political speeches of our time at the democratic convention. But more, I admired his ability to tell the truth in the heat of a political debate. I had the opportunity to met Governor Cuomo a few times, to discuss Native American burial protection issues. The first time was in Norwich.
I also found a copy of George Seldes's "Witness to a Century." The book was published in 1987, when Seldes was 96 years old. I'm fascinated by the memories of a man who spanned the centuries, especially when the sub-title is: "Encounters With the Noted, the Notorious, and the Three SOBs." I'm particularly interested in his meeting with William Jennings Bryan. I do not think you can find many things as thought-provoking on tv today, with the exception of Link TV and Bill Moyers.
Three books remind me of more capable journalists than most found today: "Hold On, Mr. President," by Sam Donaldson (1987); "American Moments," by Charles Kuralt (1998); and "The Greatest Generation," by Tom Brokow (1998) are offer enjoyable reading.
Three books on education remind me of the promise our schools actually have. "Political Ideology," by Robert Lane (1962); "The Ascent of Man," by J. Bronowski (1973); and especially "Free Schools," by Jonathan Kozol (1972), the author of "Death at an Early Age," make me realize that we need to not only reclaim the House and Senate, but the school boards as well.
I also bought Michael Beschloss's "The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khrushchev 1960-1963." It quotes Chip Bohlen, who had been in Washington on the first of those "Thirteen Days" that RFK describes, but then went to Paris. It was from Paris where he spoke on November 22, 1963: "There was an unknown quality about Kennedy, despite all his realism, that gave you infinite hope that somehow or other he was going to change the course of history."
One of my favorite RFK quotes notes that, "As Erik Erikson tells us, the archetype of human progress is in the story of Moses, who brought his people within sight of the promised land and then died, leaving to Joshua the leadership in achieving goals that both completely shared."
And one of his favorite lines from Tennyson:
"Come my friends,
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world."

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Interview with an Onondaga Chief

In the 1990s, I began a series of interviews with Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman. Paul was the elder chief, or "Wisdom Keeper," of the Turtle Clan. He was a member of the Onondaga Council of Chiefs, and sat on the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy) Grand Council of Chiefs.
Chief Waterman was selected by the Grand Council to be in charge of burial protection and repatriation issues. I had the opportunity to assist him in his work for many years. My sons are looking through my old files from those years, and considering putting some of it together for a book. That would be nice. Paul was not as well known to non-Indians as Oren Lyons, who was the Faith Keeper of the Turtle Clan. Oren's work has often been on the international level, while Paul focused on things at the Grass Roots level.
For young Indian people in North America, though, Chief Waterman served as a resource. For many years, when young people had a question on issues about burial ceremonies, including repatriation, their parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents would say, "Ask Chief Waterman about that. He will know." In the 1990 book "Wisdomkeepers: Meetings with Native American Spiritual Elders," by Harvey Arden and Steve Wall, the authors went to Onondaga to speak to the Elders about a number of traditional issues. Oren asked them, "Why come to us? We're the toughest nut to crack. You think we turn our Elders over to anyone who walks in the door? We guard them like pure spring water."
Oren asked Harvey and Steve if they were after secrets and mysteries? The two men answered that they were only interested in meeting some elders, and were not after secrets or mysteries, but only what the Elders cared to share. "That's good," Oren replied, "because I can tell you right now, there are no secrets. There's no mystery. There's only common sense."
I've tried to select some parts of my interviews with Paul that reflect that common sense. I think that people need to take time to step back from the fast pace of 24-7 cable news and the concrete jungles, and to shift to a different reality. Maybe this is a good time to sit on a hilltop in rural, upstate New York, and to share some pure spring water.
{The first Q&A, from "part 1" of the series of interviews, are in regard to burial issues:}
Q: How is the Native American Burial Protection and Repatriation Act working? Is New York State acting in good faith? Are museums starting to return things to the appropriate nations?
A: It's starting to work good, I think. A number of archaeologists are beginning to cooperate with the Onondaga Council of Chiefs. The Onondaga are the Fire Keepers, and so we are the right ones to return things to. Then the Onondaga return them to the proper society within the Six Nations.
Q: Many archaeologists have said that a problem with this law is that no one can identify a skeleton that is, say, 500 years old as belonging to any nation, much less clan or family. How do you answer this?
A: This is because they only know what they have read in a textbook. They need to talk to me. You see, a while back, I met an archaeologist who said that to me. And I said, "No, I can look at this burial, and I can say for sure that it is my grandfather or uncle. I recognize these remains as my family, my relations." After that archaeologist spoke to me, he realized that I am right. And this is why it is so important that archaeologists talk to an Onondaga chief."
Q: What might they learn from talking to an Onondaga Chief that they can't read in a book?
A: About who we are. That Onondaga's history goes back a lot farther than their textbooks say. Our traditions go way back in time.
Q: How far back?
A: Before there were trees and grass, the Creator gave our people Sacred Tobacco to communicate with.
Q: How old are the Onondaga? How long have you lived here, on this land?
A: (In Onondaga) The first words spoken by my people were the names of the alligator and of the turtle, and other animals white people call "prehistoric." How old are these animals? And how long have they lived here, on this land? We have ceremonies with dances where these animals are involved. Think about that, and you begin to understand how old the Onondaga are, and how long we have lived here.
Q: The US government and educational institutions refer to the Iroquois Confederacy as being about 500 years old. Why is this?
A: Europeans became aware of democracy when they met Indians 500 years ago. That's why they say that. That's why that number keeps coming up. But the younger people today know that we go way back before 1492. It's just some of the older ones who still believe that they were the only ones on earth who counted.
{In "part 2," I asked Chief Waterman more questions about politics, environmental issues, and the Onondaga Nation.}
Q: The Founding Fathers modeled the Articlesof Confederation and later, the US Constitution, in part on the Iroquois Confederacy. Ideas such as federalism, states' rights, and individual freedomswere native concepts. What important lessons didn't the US learn?
A: Democracy. Because democracy means being honest and telling the truth. Most white politicians are liars. They tell lies, and then pass laws to enforce their lies.
Q: Why doesn't Onondaga share non-Indian societies' fascination with the past misdeeds of leaders? Do you think Bill Clinton inhaled marijuana thirty years ago? Does it matter?
A: People grow up and change. Remember that the first Tadodaho was the meanest man on earth, until the song of the little birds changed him. He bacame a great leader.
So we respect change. We forget the bad. Maybe if I think of their past, I would say that the first Tadodaho had to be so bad, in order to become so good for his people.
But if we adopt a Mohawk into an Onondaga Clan, he is no longer thought of as a Mohawk. We know him as an Onondaga. And this is how my people view change. With respect.
Q: What are the advantages of a matriarchal society?
A: Women. What good are men without women's influence? They become greedy for power. In a matriarchal society, women aren't greedy for power, because society recognizes the power of being a woman.
Q: You have been busy organizing a grass roots alliance of environmentally-aware groups along the Susquehanna River. Tell us about this.
A: I have wampum from my nation, and the Grand Council. I wasn't elected for this work. I was selected. My role is to bring a message to non-Indian people along the Susquehanna, and all the rivers and streams connected to it. ....
My goal is to teach people that the Susquehanna was my people's first highway. It is the actual bloodline of Mother Earth. My message is the Susquehanna is sacred, and deserves our respect.
They say that Indians were the first environmentalists. The shoresof the Susquehanna hold the remains of these Ancient Ones. And so today, I am fighting to protect the Sacred Grounds that hold the remains of these first environmentalists. .... that is why it's so important that we work together. Again, the Two Row Wampum Belt.
Q: How can people join and help?
A: During the Revolutionary War, a man named Sullivan was supposed to exterminate the Onondaga. We're still here, so he didn't kill us all. But he did kill a lot of families.
Every one of those families knew the history of the area they lived in. They had an oral history of the events of those places that were important to our people. It might be Owego, or Sidney, or Greene, or Tioga Center. But this knowledge died with them in that war. So today we rely on the people who live in those places to help us with the history hat their people have handed down.
Q: What types of problems do you face in doing reburial ceremonies?
A: It can be hard, you know. Archaeologists are paid big money by construction companies and the state to dig up my ancestors. But they don't pay for reburials. I've had to pay for most of that, myself.
Also, some Indian people can make it hard. I was just doing a reburial, and had the remains wrapped in a doe skin for ceremony. Someone said, "Don't let white people watch. Don't let them use cameras. This is sacred."
I said the earth is sacred, too. We all walk on the earth, and if a white person takes a picture of its sacred beauty, I think that's good.
The stars are sacred to my people, too. But I don't mind if white people look up at the stars. I don't own them.
The Onondaga know that the sun is sacred. We recognize that the Creator intends the sun to shine on all of the races and religions.
Q: In Corning, NY, a few years back, we helped preserve some ancient stone monuments. One local fellow, a doctor, said he had never thought about Indians before he came into contact with those monuments. Then he said he became obsessed. What happened?
A: There's something there, a force that communicates. Remember that glacial lake there? My ancestors' ancestors, the Ancient Ones, had ceremonies there. .... My people laid down and drank the water from that lake, and the water communicated a message from the Creator. And that is what these stone monuments communicate, too ....
You know, it's funny, even when I was a little boy, and I was on a farm, I would lay on the ground and drink water from a spring. I would think about my name, Water-Man. I knew that water was a messagefrom the Creator when I was a little boy. And so it makes me sad to think that the water is so dirty today. Little children can no longer lay on the ground and drink water from a spring or a lake. The people who have poisoned the water have cut little children off from the message of the Creator.
{"Part 3" was conducted at a reburial ceremony at the Penn Site, near Jamesville, NY. The site was part of the grounds of a state prison.}
Q: This is a large crowd. Tell us about the people here today.
A: I remember when I was the only one, and did this alone. Maybe an archaeologist would watch. But today, there are Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk. And some Indian people are here from Venezuela. They are coming to the Long House today.
There are also people from Onondaga County, all the surrounding communities. CBS and NBC are here. I really like the people I've met from Hamilton College. They are seeing this first-hand, and it opens their minds. They understand what this means to us.
Q: Is the archaeologist that excavated the site here?
A: No. He wasn't invited. It's impossible for a person who still justifies digging graves to grasp the spiritual concepts here.
Q: Describe these concepts.
A: This morning, there was a lot of thunder and rain. Some people wanted to postpone the ceremony. But I said no, this is the Thunder People, carrying on their duties to speak for the Creator. Then when I burned the tobacco during the reburial, three hawks appeared in the sky. A feather dropped from one, and landed next to us. A lady watched it fall, and she picked it up and handed it to me. All she could say was, "Wow!"
Q: What do you think about this being a prison site?
A: When we had the stand-off with the state over the highway in the 1970s, the same troopers that had guns pointed at us were called away to Attica, where they slaughtered the prisoners. Leon (Shenandoah, Tadodaho) said the prisoners just wanted to be treated like humans. We felt a connection. They died for us.
No one wants to be kept in a box. Not in a museum, not in jail. The prisoners in Jamesville are human beings, too. I wish they were here for the ceremony.
Q: This was the first time non-Indians were allowed to take an active part in the ceremony of reburial. Why?
A: They need to know what happened. These were families buried here, where in some graves the parents were actually holding their childrens' hands. Non-Indians had never seen this before. Letting the white women see this can help change public opinion, because women are the ones that can help society cure the sicknesses that cause people to kill people and then rob their graves. Women made today possible. White women and Clan Mothers. So, again, this is the power of the circle.
{The last interview took place shortly after 9-11.}
Q: People in the United States have had a difficult time since the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Onondaga recently released a statement of support to the USA. How do you view this?
A: We are really sorry about the innocent people. This isn't about government policy or religion. It's about human beings. It's about mothers and fathers. Sons and daughters. Brothers and sisters.
This is the same thing that happened to my people. I'm not pointing fingers, or saying one government is right, or one religion is wrong. .... I think this conflict today is money versus money. Without money, those terrorists could not have done what they did. But that doesn't concern me as much as the innocent human beings who have suffered and died ....
Q: The American people are divided about how to respond to the threat of terrorism. What are your thoughts?
A: Listen, when you say people are divided, think about this: the military is dropping bombs and food on Afghanistan. That is a divided approach, isn't it? What might have happened if hey brought in food before? Why isn't it just as important to fight starvation and suffering, as it is for oil and money?
I feel bad for the soldiers, too. Most of them are young men. They are patriotic. Like those who fought in Desert Storm, for their national interest. But I don't remember gas prices dropping much since then. So who's interest was this in? ...
So before anyone calls for violence, they should learn all they can about this conflict. Learn who has what interest in what resource. Don't advocate killing people without knowing why. That's cowardice.
Q: What do you think about the threat of chemical or biological warfare?
A: Do you mean the poor people who live near chemical dump sites? I think they will suffer and die. This is not a new threat, really. It's just on a different scale.
Or did you mean the past? They were nice to my family. When we were cold, they gave us a blanket. It was warm. But it had small pox on it, and killed thousands of my family.
Q: What do you think about the possibility of backlash against Arab-Americans and against Islam?
A: Look what they did to my family, the Susquehannas? Sullivan went down the river to find Onondaga and Mohawk. He couldn't find any, so he killed innocent people who he thought talked and looked like those he was after.
What do I think? I don't believe that anyone who kills innocent people because of their language or religion is a hero.
Q: President Bush has referred to fighting the "evil doers." What do you think of this?
A: Well, he's the same way. Those people in Afghanistan are so poor and miserable. They suffer when bombs kill their parents, and they hurt when bullets kill their children. So even if Bush believes what he is doing is righ, he has to commit evil acts to achieve his goal. .....
{My final questions were about the tensions being caused by the "religious right" in America, and on Chief Waterman's thoughts on "Divine Intervention."}
A: Well, church is good, religion is good. But don't overdo it. I tell people to ... be careful not to use your religion to judge your neighbor.
People who think that they are as good as the Creator think that they can move mountains. They can't. Do the Creator's will, and the mountains move.
Be a good neighbor. If my garden is ready beforeyours, we should share mine now, and your's later. Too many people don't understand the power of sharing. You have to remember that all of the earth is the Creator's garden, and he shares it with us. That's why I say sharing is divine intervention.
Remember the Y2K scare? Some people asked if we were prepared at Onondaga. If we had stored food and water. I said, listen, if the Creator wants to bring dinosaurs back, they'll be on your front lawn tomorrow morning. And if he wants to end the world, he will. On that day,do you want to tell the Creator that you prepared to meet him by storing food, or sharing it?
See, people suffer every day, from floods and hurricanes. If we want to do the work of the Creator, we share with them. That's doing the Creator's will.
Note: Chief Paul Waterman died a few years ago. Sometimes, when I see the problems with the world, including President Bush's fight against "evil-doers," the lack of response to Katrina, and the threat of violence in our culture, I like to go sit on that hill, near the spring, and remember the message he communicated. I hope you enjoy it, too.)

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Rovian Secretions

Rovian Secretions
The 4-17-06 New York Sun article "No Hint Seen in Memo that Plame's Role Was Secret" included a link to a declassified version of a State Department memorandum that has played a significant role in the Plame Scandal. The Sun article suggests the memo "undercuts the idea of a deliberate campaign to expose Plame." That idea was put in check by Jason Leopold's article "State Department Memo: '16 Words' Were False," on TruthOut yesterday.
However, because the Sun article quotes Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, in its attempt to spin the memo to the White House's advantage, I thought we should take a closer look. The Sun had made a Freedom of Information request for the memo last July, and reportedly had just received it. When we consider that Karl Rove apparently didn't see the memo, and wasn't on Air Force One on the July 2003 trip to Africa when it was reportedly passed around to administration officials who were upset by Joe Wilson's NY Times op-ed, it seems curious that the Sun would seek Luskin's opinion.
Just for fun, let's look back to July of 2005, and see if there is anything that stands out about Rove and Luskin. Perhaps we could start with "Rove At War," the 7-25-05 Newsweek cover story, which concludes, "As for Rove, friends say that he was shaken by the speed with which the Wilson story moved -- and in a direction he didn't expect. He's used to being in control. But now all Rove can do is mark time until someone else -- Patrick Fitzgerald -- says what comes next. After his re-election victory last November, Bush called Rove the 'Architect.' Now the hunter has to wait with everyone else to see if he has become the hunted." (page 34)
In "Think Progress's" research forum on "23 Administration Officials Involved in Plame Leak," we are reminded that on 9-29-03, when asked if he had any knowledge of who leaked a CIA agent's name, Karl answered, "No." (ABC News; 9-29-03) And that very day, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said he had spoken with Karl, and it was a "ridiculous suggestion" that he played any role in the scandal. (White House briefing; 9-29-03) And the 7-11-05 Newsweek quoted Karl as saying, "I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name."
Karl had testified three times before the grand jury. He reportedly had admitted that he participated in discussions about Wilson and Plame with some administration officials, apparently those in the WHIG. But he had denied discussing her with Time reporter Matt Cooper. During the period of time Rove denied talking to Cooper, both Time and Cooper were fighting Fitzgerald's efforts to force him to testify to the grand jury. But, as the 7-25-05 Time reports, Cooper had decided to testify.
Matthew Cooper told the grand jury that Rove had told him their conversation was on "deep background," which he understod to mean he "must keep the identity of my source confidential." Without using Valerie's name, Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for "the agency," and was responsible for sending him on the trip to Niger. He mentioned that information was going to be declassified in the "coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings." He ended the conversation by saying, "I've already said too much."
How did Karl Rove and Robert Luskin respond to all of this? The 7-25-05 Newsweek notes, "Last week, Newsweek has learned, after Time's Matthew Cooper provided grand-jury testimony on his July 11, 2003, conversation with Karl Rove, Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, placed a call to Fitzgerald to make sure he didn't need anything more from Rove in light of Cooper's claims. Fitzgerald didn't bite: 'We'll get back to you,' the prosecutor replied curtly, and quickly got off the line." (page 32)
The 10-15-05 New York Times reported that Rove testified before the grand jury again. He had a cover story, about finding an e-mail to Steve Hadley that he found after his lawyer had "refreshed" his memory. This, we learned, was as a result of Luskin dining with Viveca Novak. However, in two meetings with Fitzgerald -- one under oath -- Ms. Novak's story did not seem to support Luskin's. (See "What Viveca Novak Told Fitzgerald"; Time; 12-11-05)
Ms. Novak would end her career with Time as a result of this incident. Her editors were not the only people unhappy with her behavior. "One Final note," she wrote in her final Time article, "Luskin is unhappy that I decided to write about our conversation, but I feel that he violated any understanding to keep our talk confidential by unilaterally going to Fitzgerald and telling him what was said."
And that brings us to another tactic that Rove and Luskin use frequently: selective secretions to the media. The 10-24-05 New York Times featured an article, "Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges." Among the sad attempts were efforts to say if Fitzgerald indicted Rove, it would amount to "criminalizing politics and that Mr. Fitzgerald did not understand how Washington works."
More, in the 10-19-05 New York Daily News, a presidential counselor was quoted as saying that "an angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair .... 'He made his displeasure known to Karl ... He made his life miserable about this'."
All of this was too much for even Robert Novak, the dehydrated journalist who had first published Plame's identity in July 2003. On his 12-14-05 MSNBC show, host Tucker Carlson noted that Novak "said yesterday he is confident President Bush knows who leaked Plame's name and should settle the mystery." Guest David Schuster told Carlson that he believed Fitzgerald would eventually indict Rove, based in part upon Ms. Novak's testimony.
Perhaps it was just a coincidence that the New York Sun had an article quoting Luskin, who said, "It's something that people got very excited about," but that the State Department memo "further substantiates that nobody involved in discussions of her or her role in sending Mr. Wilson had the slightest inkling she was in classified status." But the memo never said she sent Wilson. I think this is another selective Rovian secretion, testing ways to blunt upcoming leak charges.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

The Way of the One-Eyed Man

The Way of the One-Eyed Man

(1} In the past few weeks, I've had the pleasure of talking to Rubin "Hurricane" Carter about his new book "The Way of the One-Eyed Man." It is scheduled to be released in Canada in the fall, probably in late September. It should be available in the United States in October.

Those familiar with Rubin's boxing career, his legal trials and tribulations, and 20 year incarceration, know that there are a series of books detailing his life. "The 16th Round: From #1 Contender to Number 45472," was his autobiography, published in 1974. Then in 1991, "Lazarus and the Hurricane: the untold story of the freeing of Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter," by Sam Chaiton and Terry Swinton, was published in Canada. Although it was the #1 book in Canada, it did not become available in the USA for a couple of years, except through The Ring boxing magazine.

In 2000, two books on Carter were published in the US: first, "Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter and the American Justice System," by Paul Wice, a professor of political science at Drew University; and then "Hurricane: The Miraculous Journey of Rubin Carter," by James Hirsch.

Carter is also found in several other books, including "Voices from the Big House," a collection of writings from people in the American prison system. But perhaps the two most widely know vehicles for his story were the 1975 song "Hurricane," by Bob Dylan (most of the lyrics were by psychologist Jacques Levy, who the last I knew was teaching at Colgate University in rural, upstate New York); and the Norman Jewison movie "The Hurricane," featuring Denzel Washington. ESPN Classic and A&E's American Justice also did great one-hour specials on Carter.

Each of these presents interesting and valuable information on Rubin and his case. In a sense, they remind me of the old tale of the blind men attempting to describe an elephant; for example, the authors of "Lazarus and the Hurricane" told the story from the point of view of a group of Canadians who assisted Rubin in the years just before his release from prison. Some critics felt that their book placed too much emphasis on the Canadian group, and not enough on the attorneys. In truth, the case was the longest, most tried and appealed in US history, and so no single book could possible cover all of the legal issues involved. The Paul Wice book, though it contains a few errors, does a better job of addressing those legal issues.

Still, a large part of the story, which is hinted at in the first two books, and addressed somewhat in a few of the best pages of Hirsch's fantastic book, was never really told in the manner it needed to be. I'm one of the people who has been pestering Rubin to write it. The response of people to his speeches over the years since the movie came out has convinced him that it is time now.

{2} Rubin Carter was born on May 6, 1937 in Delawanna, New Jersey. His book "The 16th Round" tells the story of growing up black in America. And it was a difficult time to be black in the US. Carter's book describes some of his connections to three of the "institutions" that many black folk belonged to in those days; the three are not mutually exclusive -- and in fact the overlap of the three is what defined Rubin's early life. The three are the family; the churches; and the criminal "underworld," including youth gangs.

Most of young Rubin's life took place in and around Paterson, NJ. It is interesting to note that while the Moynihan Report, which came out around the same time as Rubin's arrest and conviction, would focus on the impact of single parent families on black culture, Rubin had another not uncommon experience. His father was a senior deacon in a strict Baptist church. (Rubin's paternal grandfather and 10 uncles were also men of the cloth.) Like many black fathers, Rubin's dad was an overly strict figure, who was doing his best to prepare his children for the harsh realities of being a black man or woman in the USA.

Rubin developed a stutter as a youth, which was illustrative of his inability to comunicate what was going on inside him, to the outside world. At the time, of course, his world was limited to his family, his church, and school. He soon learned to communicate his frustration and anger with his fists, and became a member (then leader) of an urban youth "gang."

He was like many of the young black men living on the margins of society in the 1950s and '60s. He was intelligent, but lacked formal education. He had rejected organized religion because he rejected the authority of any patriarchal figure. And his criminal activities resulted in periods of incarceration in youth facilities, and eventually adult jails and prisons.

In the classic "Autobiography of Malcolm X," there is a point where the former criminal Malcolm Little transforms into Minister Malcolm X. He is always aware, however, of the wasted human talent from the black communities, which gets channeled into vice and crime, resulting in people who may have had the ability to be an uplifting force in society to end up flint-hard convicts. Carter could have easily taken that route for his entire life, and one suspects that life would have been cut short by a policeman's gun or a criminal's knife. But Rubin never did things the easy way.

As a young adult, Rubin was in the military. While stationed in Germany, he met an older man who taught him about the religion of Islam. He also began taking some courses for college credit, and began an amateur boxing career. But his issues with authority and abuse of alcohol led to further problems, both in the military and in New Jersey. Carter would end up in Trenton State Prison, where he became focused on boxing.

{3} When Rubin was released from prison, and began a career as a professional prize fighter, the Civil Rights movement was in full swing. As Carter's ring career brought him recognition nationally as the "Hurricane," his family ties would get him involved in the movement. A cousin he was particularly close to was a community activist, with strong ties to the mainstream civil rights groups. Rubin did volunteer work with youth groups, including "at risk" young men who were looking for success as professional athletes. He took part in the March on Washington, where he heard Martin Luther King, Jr's "I Have a Dream" speech.

At the same time, professional boxing was a sport closely tied to what might politely be called "organized crime." In Paterson, NJ, that included competing groups that looked to control gambling, drug trade, prostitution, and boxing. The most famous (or infamous) article on Rubin's career came not from a boxing magazine, but from the Saturday Evening Post. It was titled "A Match Made in the Jungle," and it detailed the upcoming Joey Giardello - Rubin Carter middleweight title bout. Carter was described as an unstable, violent product of the ghettos and prisons, and Giardello as the trophy horse of one of the largest mafia "families" in the USA.

It is worth remembering that the Civil Rights movement resulted in hundreds of threats of violence; of savage assaults on innocent victims; in bombings of cars, homes, and churches; and in the deaths of far more people than our "common memory" too often honors. If one reads the three-part series by Taylor Branch of "America in the King Years," you begin to appreciate the scope of the suffering of the nonviolent groups in the black community.

Some groups in the black community, however, did not subscribe to Martin's philosophy of non-violence. Among them was the Nation of Islam. Although Elijah Mohammad was the NOI's leader, Minister Malcolm X was its most widely recognized spokesman, and Malcolm advocated black American's exercising their rights to self-defense. When Malcolm spoke about the concept of black people forming "rifle clubs," he scared white America, as well as the established civil rights groups.

So, when Carter was quoted in the Saturday Evening Post article as saying blacks in American cities should use weapons, if necessary, to protect their families even from violent police officers, he caught the attention of more than boxing fans. And when he travel back and forth to South Africa, for a couple boxing matches, his relationship with a young Stephen Biko, and his interest in supporting the African National Congress, was also noted by people who were not mere boxing fans.

Rubin was a popular fighter on the Friday Night Fights. He won a couple of the most intense one round knock-outs, and was competing well against the top fighters in the middleweight division. He won and lost in tough fights against several fighters who would hold world titles from the welterweight to light heavyweight division.

His "role model" was Jack Johnson, the controversial black heavyweight champion who refused to conform to societies' expectations. Carter would strike up a curious friendship with Charles "Sonny" Liston, who would lose the heavyweight title to Cassius Clay (who briefly became Cassius X, and then Muhammad Ali). But, when Carter broke his relationship with the white management group he had, and began fighting for black interests -- by no coincidence, at a time when black organized crime was challenging for turf in New Jersey -- he found out (as did Liston) that there are consequences for crossing those who control boxing. His career did not reach its potential, in large part because he no longer had the connections to get the fights that would benefit his career. Hence, he was traveling to places like South Africa for fights.

{4} On June 16, 1966, Carter had a meeting planned with one of his management team, to discuss plans to travel to South America to box. It would be one of the most violent nights in Paterson, NJ's history.

Both the Canadians and Hirsch's books detail the history of mob violence that was taking place in that era of Paterson's history. The most famous up to that point was known as the Kavanaugh case; it involved a conflict over gambling profits, and would result in police corruption (including mafia ties) being exposed. More, the case involved the use of petty criminals who gave false testimony to convict an innocent person of murder.

In the hours before Carter left his home, a white man went into a bar he sold to a black man, to pick up the final payment. A disagreement arose, apparently over the profits from "numbers running" operated out of the business. The white man left, and came back moments later with a shotgun. He killed the bartender.

Six hours later, two black men entered a bar & grill, and shot four people. Two died immediately, and two survived. The general details of the case are told in the numerous legal briefs, newspaper and magazine accounts, and in the books, tv programs, and movie previously mentioned. I will not go into great detail, other than to mention that one of the most valuable services provided by the Canadians was to create a huge chart that outlined all the documented evidence from that night, and how the statements and testimony of those involved frequently shifted and changed over the next 20 years.

Both of the people who survived the shooting, and a number of people who were either in the tavern or in the neighborhood, gave a detailed description of the assassins: two tall, thin light black men, wearing dark suits, one of whom had a pencil-line mustache. Both were described by the witnesses as being about 6 feet tall.

Rubin Carter and two black friends were in one of a half-dozen white cars that police pulled over that night. Eventually, Rubin and John Artis were brought to a hospital to allow the victims to view them. Both indicated to police that Rubin and John were not the gunmen. They were questioned at the police station, Rubin's car was searched, and they were released.

A week later, both Rubin and John were among people who testified to a grand jury investigating the murders. The lead detective told the grand jury that both men had taken and passed polygraphs. He said that they did not fir the description of the killers. In fact, the woman who was shoot had picked two suspects out from police mug shots, and identified them as the assassins.

However, in time, two officers became convinced that while Rubin was not one of the gunmen, he may have encouraged the murder as a form of "racial revenge" for the earlier murder of a black man. They began to plant evidence to implicate Carter. For example, one claimed that he had found some shells in Carter's car on the night of the murders. It would not be until 1974 that it was discovered that he had not "filed" the shells until almost two weeks after the murders, and they did not match those from the murder Rubin would be accused of; in fact, they were the same type as those used in the first murder, which the same officer had gathered from that crime scene.

The case would go on to be the single most litigated case in US history. Carter and Artis would be convicted of triple murders, based largely on the testimony of a career criminal, caught stealing money from the cash register of the bar that June night. He had been incarcerated several times in the past, and was facing nine felony counts which were "taken care of" in return for testifying he saw Carter and Artis outside of the bar after the murders. He would tell 14 versions of events over the next 15 years.

The case has enough to keep lawyers, criminologists, and sociologists discussing, debating, and arguing for another twenty years. Some day I may write about what really happened on that terrible night, but for this essay, I will simply say Rubin Carter did not participate in any way with the vicious murders. He had nothing to do with those killings.

{5} In prison, Carter attracted the attention of a variety of famous people, from Bob Dylan to Muhammad Ali. Those are fascinating chapters in his story that have been told. Also interesting are the roles that some great legal minds played, attorneys like Myron Beldock, Lewis Steele, and constitutional expert Leon Friedman. Many were involved in assisting Carter in the mid-1970s, to uncover evidence for a successful Brady appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Yet for a variety of reasons, in the re-trial, the two were again convicted.

In large part it was because the prosecutor was able to make an appeal to racism, in stating without any legal foundation that Carter and Artis, who were black, were likely to commit a "revenge killing" because they were enraged that a white man had murdered a black man they had never met. They also misrepresented the results of a polygraph expert's testing of the state witness who said he saw Carter and Artis at the scene of the crime. Eventually, these two issues would be argued in federal court by Friedman, in a series of hearings that eventually reached the US Supreme Court.

There were other people who played significant roles with Rubin while he remained incarcerated, for which they never wanted any attention or "credit." Among these was Thom Kindren, who for years brought Rubin "care packages" in prison. Rubin refused to eat prison food, wear prison clothing, or participate in prison activities. Thus, Thom's 20-lb packages sustained him on cans of soup he heated on a metal coil in his cell.

Thom also brought Rubin books. The ESPN Classic special addresses Carter's using his prison cell "as an unnatural laboratory to conduct experiments on the human spirit." He read everything from Plato, Aristotle, Freud, and the Bible, to a few of Thom's favorites which changed his life. These were books by Viktor Frankel, Jiddu Krishnamurti, and Piotr Demianovich Ouspensky.

I was one of two people that Rubin corresponded regularly with during those years. I have long letters that he wrote late at night from his prison cell. He began to stripe away all the layers of his personality, from the angry warrior with the bald head, fu-manchu and goatee, and began to note that "bitterness contaminates the vessel which contains it." as his relationship with himself changed, his concepts about his interactions with other changed, also.

Thus, while he sat in court for round after round of appeals in the New Jersey courts, and heard the prosecutors describing the angry, violent black assassin, he recognized that they were not talking about him. When he no longer felt compelled to prove he was not involved in the murders, new doors began to open. One of the most important was what was called the Caruso file, which was the notes of a police investigator who found out in the mid-1970s that Carter and Artis were not the murderers. In fact, the state had prepared a case that claimed others were the actual murderers, but that Carter had encouraged them, and was "there but not shooting." The Caruso file had evidence that indicated investigators found Carter and Artis were not involved.

Other doors began to open: on November 7, 1985, Carter's case was heard in US District Court in Newark, NJ. The next day he walked out of prison a free man.

{6} Rubin today is always busy. He works on issues involving social justice, in opposition to capital punishment, and assisting those who have been wrongly convicted. When he calls, often late at night, he may be in Canada, California, or Florida. Always – always! -- when I ask, “How are you doing?”, his response is, “Perfect, my brother!” Rubin recognizes that every day of life is a miracle, which should be appreciated and lived fully. And when I talk to Rubin and he tells me he is at work on a project with Nelson Mandela, I am aware that life is indeed a miraculous journey.

Rubin and I discuss everything from human culture to horticulture. Who would think that two old pugs would be comparing notes on the best fertilizers for roses? Boxing fans might recall me questioning him two years ago on ESPN about his relationship with Sonny Liston and Malcolm X. But while there might be a limited audience who would be interested in those discussions on boxing and compost, I think that many of the people who are involved in progressive politics, and in social activism, will find Carter’s new book fascinating.

Many people have had issues relating to the structure of their family of origin. Many, like Rubin, find patriarchal religious systems to have that same rigid structure. Many find that the current social structure handcuffs them, and seems to restrict their options. Many find the USA today is being run like a large corporation that has put the most criminal of inmates in charge.

One of the topics that the Hurricane loves to talk about is the two forces involved in the growth and destruction of nation-states. Rubin met George Bush when he was the governor of Texas, and Rubin was involved in trying to save an inmate from execution. He has strong impressions of the nature of the president. And he travels the globe, and has strong impressions on how the rest of the world community views the Bush administration and the USA.

Now, this may sound like that long arm of coincidence, wrenching itself out of socket, but I am convinced that if we, as individuals and as a people, are going to turn this thing around, and transform this society, we may find some helpful information in Rubin’s experience.

Thursday, April 13, 2006

All the Vice President's He-Men

During a February 24, 2006 pretrial hearing, Judge Reggie Walton adjusted the scheduling for three important motions in the Scooter Libby case. He moved the date for Team Libby to file their Third Motion to Compel Discovery from March 3 to March 17 (Document 68-1); for Fitzgerald's Government's Response from March 20 to April 5 (Document 80); and Team Libby's Reply Memorandum from March 27 to April 12.
Fitzgerald's Response, which mentioned Libby's grand jury testimony linking President Bush and Vice President Cheney to the leaking of the pre-war National Intelligence Estimate, had created what Libby's attorneys call "an avalanche of media interest" in the case. Where many believed that having Libby's case scheduled for 2007 would keep it from impacting Washington politics, the pre-trial motions clearly showed the potential to do significant damage to both Bush and Cheney.
Hence, those interested in the case were interested in what the Libby Reply would hold. Though it is primarily in regard to CIPA (Classified Information Procedures Act) issues, dealing with what information Libby is entitled to to prepare his defense, the defense document and exhibits raise many interesting related issues. Let's start by looking at information about Bush and Cheney.
As noted, Team Libby takes note of Fitzgerald's mentioning the role of the president and vice president in leaking the NIE. "In other words," they write, "the government has effectively conceded that the case extends far beyond Mr. Libby..." As we will see, Libby will attempt to focus attention on people as far away from himself and Cheney as possible, even if it risks involving the president. "If the press stories surrounding the government's NIE disclosure illustrates anything, it is that thins case is factually complex and that the government's notion that it involves only Mr. Libby and the OVP is a fairy tale." (pages 2-3)
On pages 20-21, they note "that the President through the Vice President authorized the disclosure" of parts of the NIE. They note that Fitzgerald calls this "unique in (Mr. Libby's) recollection." They note this indicates "that the highest officials in the Executive Branch took unusual steps to counter Mr. Wilson's criticism..."
However, as evidence that Scooter and Cheney did not consider Ms. Wilson significant, they note that "...the Vice President's direction that Mr. Libby speak to the press, the rarity of 'on the record' statements by Mr. Libby -- has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Wilson's wife." (page 17)
True to Dick Cheney's endorsement of Scooter as a great and noble American hero, Team Libby is willing to help redirect Mr. Fitzgerald in his search for those who "could be 'characterized as reflecting a possible attempt or plan to discredit or punish Mr. Wilson or Ms. Wilson'." (page 10) Let's look at some people that Team Libby hints may be the true villains, rather than Dick Cheney and his trusty Scooter.
The first is former CIA Director George Tenet. Although Fitzgerald's Response stated that he had no plans to call Tenet, Team Libby calls him "a likely witness." As today's Washington Post article by R, Jeffery Smith notes, Libby expresses some suspicions of Tenet and the Agency: "...to the extent that Director Tenet was involved in the creation of the referral documents, or actively pushed the DOJ to investigate the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity, the referral documents would show that the bias against Mr. Libby reached the highest levels of the CIA and did not simply represent the complaints of lower-ranking employees." (page 24) That darned CIA was just looking to blame everything on St. Scooter.
Another White House official of interest to Team Libby is Karl Rove. In their Motion to Compel, they had stated Karl would be a "key witness" in Fitzgerald's case. In his response, Fitzgerald noted he had no plans to call Rove at Libby's trial. (see page 15 of Document 80) Team Libby responds by saying this "does not diminish his importance in this case," and again request discovery information as they may call him to testify. They note that "Rule 16 compels disclosure of such documents even if Mr. Rove remains a subject of a continuing grand jury investigation." (pages 15-16)
Team Libby also continues to be focused on both Marc Grossman and Ari Fleischer. They contend that Grossman may be prone to lying about conversations with Scooter regarding Plame, because of his loyalty to the State Department in general, and Dick Armitage specifically. (pages 12-13) But Fleischer gets even harsher treatment: they note that "...Mr. Fleischer may have learned about Ms. Wilson's identity from someone at the State Department or the CIA"; that they want to question him "about whether he saw the report on Air Force One, whether he recognized that it contained classified information, and whether he communicated its contents to anyone else"; and to explore the "likely ... key role" Ari played in "orchestrating and implementing the Administration's strategy for rebutting Mr. Wilson's claims."(pages 14-15) Other details regarding Fleischer were included in a sealed Declaration filed by defense attorney Teddy Wells yesterday.
They also are considering calling Joseph Wilson "as a hostile witness" and examine details of his trip to Niger and the role his wife may have played. They also want to be prepared to examine his findings as reported to the CIA, and to the media.
Team Libby notes that Fitzgerald "pretends that Mr. Wilson's wife was a part of the response Mr. Libby was instructed to make to Mr. Wilson's false claims..." (page 17) While this is nonsense -- Mr. Fitzgerald's documents do not state Libby was instructed to expose Plame, and Joseph Wilson's claims were anything but "false" -- Team Libby goes on to outline their need to show that it was others who expose Plame. "The defense intends to show the jury that the controversy over intelligence failures ... led certain officials within the White House, the State Department, and the CIA to point fingers at one another. This bureaucratic infighting provides necessary context ..." for the "administration's strategies for countering Mr. Wilson's Criticism." (pages 16 & 21)
In conclusion, it almost appears that Libby is inclined to be willing to tattle on others, including Fleischer and Rove. It is important to recall that he was close to making a deal with Fitzgerald before the October, 2005 indictments, but refused to accept an extended incarceration as part of the deal. Perhaps with his legal team making it clear that he will likely be convicted, and that the door is being closed on some of the issues for appeal, Scooter will reconsider his options. Because, in the end, they are correct in saying this isn't a "fairy tale."

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

All the President's Lies

"The thing that has been, it is that which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done;
and there is no new thing under the sun."
-- Ecclesiastes 1:9 ("The Preacher")

President George W. Bush's body language while he was attempting to answer a question yesterday about his role in the Plame scandal was interesting. He lowered his head, and raised both shoulders several times, appearing uncomfortable with the subject matter. His physical presentation was markedly different than when Bush is at ease, much less confident, regardless of if he is attempting to tell the truth or lie.

For many of us who were around in the early 1970s, President Bush seems to be doing a mean impression of Richard Nixon. Now, two days ago, I posted an essay on Cheney's tribute to Agnew. While most readers understand such comparisons, a few react like a 10-year old when told they look like their grandparent .... and like that child who shudders to think someone views them as a gray-haired, wrinkled elder, a couple people pointed out differences between Cheney and Agnew. Likewise, there are very real differences between Bush and Nixon, and Plame and Watergate. However, today I thought it would be interesting to consider a few similarities.

On July 16, 1973, former presidential aide Alexander Butterfield disclosed that President Nixon had taped conversations in the Oval Office. These tapes became some of the most important evidence in the series of crimes that we know as "Watergate." On April 30, 1974, an edited version of some of the tapes became public.

Perhaps the most important conversation recorded by Nixon that became public was made on March 21, 1973. There are actuallt two from that day: the first was made from 10:12 - 11:55 am, between Nixon, his attorney John Dean , and his chief of staff H. R. Haldeman; the second was recorded from 5:20 - 6:01 pm, and included Nixon, Dean, Haldeman, and John Ehrlichman, Nixon's assistant for domestic affairs.

Let's look at some of the highlights. Nixon had been attempting to reduce Watergate to a public relations problem in the days before this meeting, asking aides, "How do you handle that PR wise?" Dean makes clear that it is much more serious.

D: I think that there is no doubt about the seriousness of the problem we've got. We have a cancer within, close to the Presidency, that is growing. It is growing daily. It's compounded, growing geometrically now, because it compounds itself .... People are going to start perjuring themselves very quickly that have not had to perjure themselves to protect other people in the line. And there is no assurance --

N: That it won't bust?

D: That it won't bust. So let me give you the sort of basic facts ....

Dean goes into detail about the White House attempts to create an intelligence group to provide them with abilities that they do not enjoy with the established agencies. However, the intelligence network was used for political purposes -- to promote the administration's aggenda, and to damage their political opponents. While this is not an exact match with the Bush administration's OSP and WHIG, some perceptive people may note some subtle similarities.

More, in attempting to avoid telling the truth about their roles in these operations, a few White House officials have lied to investigators and a grand jury. They are facing potential charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. These are, curiously, the charges that Scooter Libby now faces .... and a couple others may be facing those same charges by mid-May.

D: ...I don't know if Mitchell perjured himself in the Grand Jury or not.

N: Who?

D: Mitchell. I don't know how much knowledge he actually had. I know that Magruder has perjured himself in the Grand Jury. I know that Porter has perjured himself in the Grand Jury.

Dean goes on to say that he "worked on a theory of containment" with information that could damage the White House. He was not, however, quite as confident as the senior White House official quoted in the December 5, 2003 Financial Times, who said of the Plame leak, "We have rolled the earthmovers in over this one." Dean realizes that truth crushed to earth tends to rise again.

N: ...but I would certainly keep that cover for whatever it is worth.

D: That's the most troublesome post-thing because, one, Bob is involved in that; two, John is involved in that; three, I am involved in that; four, Mitchell is involved in that. And that is an obstruction of justice. ..... All of these things are bad, in that they are problems, they are promises, they are commitments. They are the very sort of thing that the Senate is going to be looking most for. ..."

There are two problems that Dean outlines for the president. One involves a "no good, publicity seeking" attorney who is trying to represent one of the Cubans involved in Watergate. The attorney had tried to convince his client to plead not guilty. But "F. Lee Bailey, who was a partner of one of the men representing McCord, got in and cooled" the attorney down. But the number of defendants with knowledge of the scandal is a problem which requires large attorneys' fees.

N: How much money do you need?

D: I would say these people are going to cost a million dollars over the next two years.

N: We could get that. On the money, if you need the money you could get that. You could get a million dollars. You could get it in cash. I know where it could be gotten. It is not easy, but it could be done. ...

The Scooter Libby Defense Trust could surely use Nixon's skills today, to pay for the legal team he requires. But money is supposed to buy silence, and last week Don Imus asked why Libby wasn't as honorable as Liddy?

N: ... I am just trying to think. Perjury is an awful hard rap to prove. ....

D: Well, that is one perjury. Mitchell and Magruder are potential perjurers. There is always the possibility of any one of these individuals blowing. Hunt. Liddy. Liddy is in jail right now, serving his time and having a good time right now. I think Liddy in his own bizarre way (is) the strongest of them all ....

P: Let's come back to this problem. What are your feelings yourself, John? You know what they are all saying. What are your feelings about the chances?

D: I am not confident that we can ride this through. I think there are soft spots. .... everyone is now starting to watch after their behind. Eveyone is getting their own counsel. .... I can see people pointing fingers. ....

At this time, Nixon and Dean begin discussing the options of pardons and clemency. But although promises have been made to some people involved in the case, Nixon knows that he cannot help anyone else in this way. To do so could connect him to their crimes in a way that he simple refuses to risk doing. Those who look at the Iran-Contra pardon issue, and think Bush is likely to save his friends, should consider Nixon's cold approach.

N: I know you have a problem here. You have the problem with Hunt and his clemency.

D: That's right. And you are going to have a clemency problem with others. They all are going to expect to be out and that may put you in a position that is just untenable .... politically, it's impossible for you to do it. ... It may just be too hot.

N: You can't do it politically until after the '74 election, that's for sure. Your point is that even then you couldn't do it.

Note Nixon's choice of words -- "You can't do it ... you couldn't do it." It indicates a psychological block, that renders Nixon incapable of processing that it is he, not Dean, who can grant clemency. But he needs to project the responsibility onto anyone else. He buries any thoughts of his role deep into some dark region of his mind. But, again, Dean knows that the truth always pops up.

D: Yes, sir. That is not all that buried. And while I think we've got it buied, there is no telling when it is going to pop up. .... some of these secretaries have a little idea about this, and they can be broken down just so fast. ....Liddy's secretary, for example, is knowledgeable. Magruder's secretary is knowledgeable. ....

N: The problem is that you have these mine fields down the road. I think the most difficult problem are the guys who are going to jail .....And also the fact that we are not going to be able to give them clemency.

D: That's right. How long will they take? How long will they sit there? ...

N: Thirty years, isn't it? ... Top is thirty years, isn't it?

Thirty years is, of course, what Scooter is potentially facing. And thoughts that Judge Walton will help Scooter should be viewed in this context:

N: Sirica? ... What is the matter with him? I thought he was a hard liner.

D: He is. He is. He is just a peculiar animal.

The thought of long prison sentences makes both Nixon and Dean uncomfortable. Nixon recognizes that there are too many weak links in the chain, and that some people will indeed face incarceration. He begins to consider who he can sacrifice to save himself. At this time, Haldeman joins the conversation. They begin to warm up to the idea of protecting themselves by claiming their roles involved "national security" -- something that some have noticed the Bush administration doing from time to time.

D: You might put it on a national security grounds basis.

H: It absolutely was --

D: And say that this was --

H: --CIA --

D: Ah--

H: Seriously.

N: National Security. We had to get information for national security grounds.

D: Then the question is, why didn't the CIA do it or why didn't the FBI do it? ....

H: Because we were checking them.

N: Neither could be trusted.

Hmmmm. The Nixon administration couldn't trust the CIA or FBI. Sound familiar? Bad choice of enemies. Why?

N: ... And in the end, it is all going to come out anyway. Then you get the worst of both worlds. We're going to lose, and people are going to --

H: And look like dopes!

N: And in effect, look like a cover-up.

Nixon says they need to "cut their loses" and "avoid criminal liability." But he knows that his people cannot do either by telling the truth. How to do that in the context of a Senate investigation or a grand jury?

H: ... You can refuse to talk.

D: You can take the 5th Amendment.

N: That's right!

H: You can say you've forgotten, too, can't you?

D: Sure but you are chancing a very high risk for perjury situation.

What other option might there be?

N: Leaks. ... we could do that. Leak out certain stuff. We could pretty much control that. We've got so much more control.

Later that day, they meet again. This time Ehrlichman joins them. Nixon asks, hopefully, if they have reached any conclusions on how to save themselves?

H: Well, you go round and round and come up with all questions and no answers. Right back where you were at when you started. ...

N: The imposing problem is this, Does anybody really think we can do nothing? That's the option, period. ...

Ehrlichman notes that Hunt will "blow" and bring them down: However, can he, by talking, get a pardon? ... If he goes in there and tells this judge before sentencing, if he says, "Your honor I am willing to tell all. I don't want to go to jail. .... I will cooperate ..."

D: That's right ... there are a lot of weak individuals and it could be one of those who crosses up .... They will have intense civil discovery .... They will go out and take depositions and start checking for inconsistencies ... It is structured. That's your concern about, "There is something lurking here." ....

H: The perception, as you put it.

N: The point is, we were talking --

D: Alright, is that better? Or is it better to have ... things blow up and all of a sudden collapse? Think about it. ... I see in this conversation what I talked about before. They do not ultimately solve what I see as a grave problem of a cancer growing around the Presidency. ...

H: Well, see if we go your route, you can't draw the line someplace and say --

D: No, no you can't.

N: You see, if we go your route of cutting the cancer out. If we cut it out now. Take a Hunt. Well, wouldn't that knock the hell out from under him? .... John, you don't think that is enough?

D: No, Mr. President.

By the next day, E. Howard Hun, Jr. had been given $75,000. This payment would be among the grounds for obstruction of justice charges against 7 administration officials, file 12 months later.

On April 30, 1973, Nixon announced the resignations of Haldeman and Ehrlickman, during a speech to the nation. I remember Nixon's body language in those days. Unlike Bush, he never seemed truly comfortable in public, even when he was lying.

I am hoping that President Bush will show a sense of history, and address the nation on or about April 30, 2006. I am hoping that he will take the opportunity to do something Nixon was not man enough to do -- to tell the truth about his role in this scandal. Quit looking for a way to "handle this PR wise."

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Dick Cheney's Tribute to Spiro Agnew

{1} Introduction
Last week, when Patrick Fitzgerald filed the "Government's Response to Defendant's Third Motion to Compel Discovery," the public learned that Scooter Libby had testified to the grand jury that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney had authorized the leaking of classified information to journalists who supported their efforts in Iraq. This information came as no surprise to those following the case: in February, in another document Fitzgerald filed, he noted that Libby had testified that his "superiors" had authorized his leaking classified information.
Libby had served the administration in three high-ranking positions. He was an assistant to President Bush; the Vice President's Chief of Staff; and Cheney's national security advisor. Thus, in the White House, he had three "superiors": Bush, Cheney, and Andrew Card. Because the February release had indicated two or more superiors had authorized his leaking classified information, it was evident he meant Bush and Cheney. Andrew Card , while technically Libby's boss, lacked any authority to okay such leaks.
Fitzgerald's response, which is Document # 80 in the pretrial motions and rulings, has three very significant pieces of information that we should examine. Each has implications both legally and politically. Let's look at each of the three, starting with a brief quote from Document # 80, and then look at what it could mean.
{2} "Defendant further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose relevant portions of the NIE." (page 23)
This information does not connect either Bush or Cheney with Libby's discussing Plame's identification with journalists. But, obviously, it comes uncomfortably close.
More important, it raises questions about what Bush and Cheney told Mr. Fitzgerald, when he interviewed them as part of his investigation of the case. I am reminded of the decision from the US Court of Appeals regarding Matt Cooper and Judith Miller's attempt to avoid testifying, which was decided on February 15, 2005. In his concurring opinion, Circuit Judge Tatel noted, "Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security .... I might have supported the motion to quash. Because identifying appellant's sources istead appears essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming the district court's order compelling their testimony."(page 41) Likewise, for the Special Counsel to seek information from the president and vice president indicates he was aware they played some potentially significant roles.If either Bush or Cheney lied to Mr. Fitzgerald, they could face obstruction of justice charges.
Even without legal consequence, the president's being exposed does significant damage to his reputation. Unlike the domestic spying scandal, where he could respond by saying, "Everything changed on 9-11, and as president I must protect Americans," in this case he is shown to have been playing political games with intelligence. Perhaps more so than during any other time, older Americans are seeing Bush as playing a Nixon-like role. And Dick Cheney makes Spiro Agnew seem slightly less repulsive.
{3} "Because the government does not intend at this time to call three of these individuals -- Mr. Tenet, Mr. Hadley, and Mr. Rove -- defendant is not entitled to discovery based on the need to prepare to cross-examine those individuals." (page 9)
People familiar with Team Libby have great respect for the talents of William Jeffress, Joseph Tate, and especially Teddy Wells. Yet it appears that they might have misread the case that Mr. Fitzgerald is preparing. One can appreciate that they could have reasonably expected that Mr. Fitzgerald would call on Tenet, Hadley, and Rove. The fact that Fitzgerald has gone on record saying he does not plan to call them is fascinating.
Legally, especially in light of the outstanding series of reports by Jason Leopold on TruthOut, it seems possible that Hadley and Rove could be indicted by the new grand jury in early May. (See his 3-28 "Fitzgerald Will Seek New White House Indictments.") This raises questions about reports that Rove is cooperating with Mr. Fitzgerald. I am reminded of page 444 of Joseph Wilson's book, where he writes, "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." I have been told that there is significant distrust and anger between factions in the White House in recent days. Reminds me of the terminal Watergate phase of the Nixon administration, when paranoia replaced logic.
{4} "At some point after the publication of the July 6, 2003 Op Ed by Mr. Wilson, Vice President Cheney, defendant's immediate superior, expressed concerns to defendant regarding whether Mr. Wilson's trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife." (page 19)
In his book "Chain of Command," Seymour Hersch describes "a year-long tug-of-war between the CIA and the Vice President's office." (page 227) On pages 236 and 238-9, Hersch describes the tug-of-war in greater detail. One senior intelligence official told him that many people believed that there was a small group of "disgruntled retired CIA clandestine operators" who were "so pissed at Cheney" that they attempted to "put the bite on " the OVP. Hersch notes that this could be viewed as "an extraordinary commentary on the level of mistrust, bitterness, and demoralization within the CIA under the Bush Administration."
In "The Rove Problem" (Time; 7-25-05), Nancy Gibbs noted, "The tensions between the White House and CIA had been rising steadily in the months before the Iraq invasion, as CIA analysts complained about evidence being distorted or ignored and the White House pushed back with complaints about the quality of intel they were getting. 'I know the analyst who was subjected to withering questioning on the Iraq-al-Qaeda links by Libby with Vice President Cheney sitting there,' says a CIA analyst."
The tensions between the OVP and CIA were obviously at risk of boiling over. The CIA analyst told Gibbs that Wilson's op-ed played into "the Administration (being) pissed at the CIA." Again, we see shades of that old Nixon paranoia. If Cheney believed that Wilson's trip was not "legitimate," but was "in effect a junket set up" by Plame, it seems worth considering the possibility that Cheney was involved in the plan to leak more than a NIE.
{5} Conclusion
In one of my favorite books, "We Talk, You Listen," Vine Deloria, Jr. writes, "The New Left has tried to create a sense of revolution by shouting slogans and marching up and down the streets. But when the hated establishment is left secure in its citadel, certain that it cannot be dislodged, then it has very little reason to pay attention to them and maintains the power to suppress them. The New Left should use the system to create uncertainty in the minds of Congressmen it dislikes so that all would tend to change lest lightening strike them in their next election. ...There has never been a ystem yet that would not gladly sacrifice one of its own for a moment's peace, no matter how brief. If the system is to be changed, then those who would change it should pinpoint its weak spot, its blockage points, and place aqll pressure on that one point until the blockage is cleared." (pages 65-66)
Legally, we can trust Mr. Fitzgerald to address the issues involving the crimes of Libby and Rove, and perhaps even VP Cheney. But politically, we have a wonderful opportunity. It is being reported that the President left the leaking of the NIE up to VP Cheney. The Office of the President is surely attempting to distance Bush from Cheney on this. Dick Cheney is the administration's weak spot, and the blockage point that we should be putting public pressure on right now.
Cheney is more unpopular than Spiro Agnew. While republicans will fight any immediate effort to punish Bush formally for his scandals, they will sacrifice Cheney. In my conversations with aides to moderate democratic congressmen, there is far more interest in going after Cheney this summer, than attacking Bush. I am not for a second excusing Bush, or attempting to suggest that democrats let him off. But there are many advantages to flushing Cheney out of the system first .... much as there was in flushing Agnew in the Watergate days.

Friday, April 07, 2006

Ari Fleischer & the Libby Trial

As the corporate media reports on information in Patrick Fitzgerald's Document # 80, regarding Scooter Libby's claim that President Bush authorized the leaking of classified NIE information to journalists, it is interesting to consider the significance of some other issues raised by the Special Counsel. In order to more fully appreciate the Bush-Cheney information, I think that we should take a few minutes to look at the role of Ari Fleischer in the Plame scandal.
Lawrence Ari Fleischer, born on 10-13-1960, served as President Bush's Press Secretary from January, 2001 to July, 2003. While his resignation became official on July 15, 2003, right when the scandal was heating up, he had actually announced it the previous May 19th.
Fleischer promoted the Bush-Cheney agenda when presenting information on Iraq to the media. His public statements were often coordinated with high-ranking officials to send mixed messages; for example, while the president was saying that he hoped to resolve the dispute with Iraq about weapons inspections without going to war, Fleischer told reporters, "I'm not saying there is no plan (of attack) on his desk." (Woodward; Plan of Attack; page 188) He also said things like, "We have intelligence information about what Saddam Hussein possesses." (Woodward; page 234)
Yet Woodward makes clear that Fleischer was not kept in the loop about many of the plans for the war. (page 397) And a July 18, 2005 report on Bloomberg.com (Special Prosecutor's Probe Centers on Rove, Memo, Phone Calls) notes he "wasn't part of Bush's inner circle during his tenure as press secretary ..."
In Document # 80, Fitzgerald notes that Team Libby has listed Fleischer as among "Potential Government Wintesses." (page 9) Fitzgerald states that Ari will be "the government's sole White House witness, (and) will focus on conversations with defendant regarding Ms. Wilson which took place in June and early July 2003." (page 11) Team Libby is focused upon Fleischer's reportedly viewing a report that Colin Powell had on Air Force 1 on a trip to Africa: "If the press reports are correct, and if Mr. Fleischer disclosed information concerning Mr. Wilson's wife to reporters, defendant argues, then Mr. Fleischer would have a motive to shade his testimony." (page 12)
While I would not recommend believing either Fleischer or Libby, because both are indeed liars, I think that looking closer at Fleischer's role actually may shed light on why the uptight, angry Scooter and his crusty pal Dick Cheney took it upon themselves to out Plame.
From page 4 (#8) of the Libby indictment, we know that, "Prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office of the Vice President in connection to a story he was writing about Wilson's trip. LIBBY participated in discussions in the Office of the Vice President concerning how to respond to Pincus." Then, on page 5 (#9), we learn that on that day, VP Cheney informed Scooter about Wilson's wife working at the CI Counterproliferation Division; Libby "understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."
On July 6, Ambassador Wilson's op-ed appeared in the New York Times. Starting the next day, Fleischer's activities are key. In the press release from Fitzgerald's office on the day of the Libby indictment, we read, "Following Wilson's July 6, 2003 statements, according to the indictment, Libby engaged in the following actions: on or about July 7, 2003, Libby had lunch with the then White House Press Secretary and advised that individual that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, noting such information was not widely known." (page 7) It seems possible, perhaps likely, that Mr. Libby was hoping that Mr. Fleischer would share this information with journalists.
Fleischer was among the White House officials who traveled on Air Force 1 with President Bush to Africa, starting on July 7. On that trip, at least one former White House official told Fitzgerald that he saw Fleischer reading a classified report regarding Wilson's trip to Niger; the report included information on Wilson's wife. (The former official who told Fitzgerald that he saw Fleischer reading the report is believed by some to be Colin Powell.)
Newsweek (7-15-05) also reported, "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? One possible explanation: some aides may have read the State Department intel memo, which Powell had brought with him aboard Air Force One." (page 30)
It is known that on July 7, Robert Novak called Ari Fleischer. It has not been publicly confirmed if the two actually spoke, and, if they did, what they spoke about. (Bloomberg.com; 7-18-05) However, in a 10-03 article, Novak wrote, "During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife." Some insightful writers have concluded that Ari may have been Novak's first source; see "Ari Fleischer is the Third Man?" from firedoglake, 10-30-05.
But on The Anonymous Liberal on 10-31-05, journalist John Dickerson is quoted as stating, "More astonishingly, we learn from the Fitzgerald indictment that Ari Fleischer knew about Plame and didn't tell anyone at all. He walked reporters, including me, up to the fact, suggesting they look into who sent Wilson, but never used her name or talked about her position. Why not? It certainly would have been helpful for him at the time."
Perhaps Mr. Fleischer was uncomfortable expoising Plame to journalists, because he knew from his lunch-time discussion with Mr. Libby that it was extremely sensitive. We do know that in his first press conference in Africa, Ari tried to put some spin on the story, by attempting to discredit Wilson. He called Wilson a "lower-level official" who made "flawed and incomplete statements on Niger." He also said that a "greater, more important truth is being lost in the flap over whether or not Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. .... People cannot conclude that the information was necessarily false." Fitzgerald would serve a subpoena for the transcript of this press conference, which the White House had posted on their website, then scrubbed, then restored. (Democracy Now; 7-19-05; // firedoglake; 10-30-05; // White House; 7-12-03)
Fleischer fumbled the attempt to spin the "16 words" as not being up to the president's high standard, but still being almost true.
Ambassador Wilson notes in his book that Fleischer's clumsy effort "kept giving the story legs." (page 336) On of the sources Wilson used for his book, William Rivers Pitt, summed it up beautifully in his 12-30-03 article, "Bush's Worst Enemy," with one of my favorite lines: "Ari Fleischer, perhaps predictable, lied." The result, in part, can be found in Wilson's book: "Almost as soon as the White House acknowledgement was announced, Walter Pincus told me he began to receive phone calls from members of the administration trying to take it back. One official told Walter that telling the truth 'was the biggest mistake the administration had made'."
What happened next? Two important events take place on July 8th: Karl Rove has a conversation with Bob Novak, which includes information on Valerie Plame; and Scooter Libby meets with Judith Miller, requesting she attribute the information he shares as coming from "a former Hill staffer."
Fitzgerald would also find a series of e-mails between Rove and Libby, in which they discuss having CI Director Tenet make a statement, taking the blame for the President including the "16 words" in his State of the Union address. A July 23, 2005 New York Times article mentions that these e-mails, which included drafts of Tenet's statement, "had not been previously disclosed."
And on July 12, Libby was with VP Cheney on their trip to Norfolk. The 10-30-05 firedoglake article focuses on a key point : "According to Josh Marshall, a key sentence was cut out of the Gellman WaPo piece last night, but is still available on Nexis:
" 'On July 12, the day Cheney and Libby flew together from Norfolk, the vice president instructed his aide to alert reporters of an attack launched that morning on Wilson's credibility by Fleischer, according to a well-placed source.' Libby talked to Miller and Cooper. That same day, another administration official who has not been identified publicly returned a call from Walter Pincus. He 'veered off the precise matter we were discussing' and told him that Wilson's trip was a 'boondoggle' set up by Plame, Pincus has written in Nieman Reports. ....Update: Anonymous Liberal suggests that the reason the WaPo pulled the quote is because it inadvertently outs Fleischer as Pincus's source."
Exactly what role Ari Fleischer played should become better understood in Libby's trial. I think that there was discomfort on the part of Cheney and Libby, because Fleischer was not effective enough in countering Wilson. Perhaps it was then that Scooter decided he needed to take charge.