After his reelection, George W. Bush refused to remove from the table the possibility that the US might attack Iran, and the neoconservatives continued to make their case for doing so. Recent developments, including Uzbekistan’s request that we close an important base, make the attack less likely.
Neoconservatives have been urging substantial air strikes in order to trigger revolts against the Iranian theocracy, which they claimed was a mere house of cards. to next attack Iraq .The neoconservatives have been suggesting that Iranian dissidents would only need a little help in toppling the Iranian radicals. The US would supply that assistance from Azerbaijan, where the Bush administration seems intent on building a base. It just welcomed the "election" of Ilham Aliev, son of the former dictator--who may have been dead two months before the voting.
In January, Seymour Hersh predicted that the US would move against Iran by late summer. Scott Ritter has written that there are signs the preparations for the attack have already begun .No doubt people in the Committee on the Present Danger, administration hawks, and neoconservatives also expected to see an operation underway.
Philip Giraldi, a respected conservative security analyst , has reported that Dick Cheney and the Pentagon have requested a plan for nuclear strikes against Iran to be deployed if there were another 9/11 event. Even the existence of such a plan would set off alarms in the numerous Shiite states that are friends of the US, and this would greatly distress friends of Iran like China. Let’s hope there reports are wrong. But given the administration’s track record and Cheney’s role in ginning up fake intelligence to support the case for invading Iraq, one cannot be certain or sanguine.
Maybe we should welcome the June election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's new president. Sure, he played a big role in the hostage crisis, but his ascent should disabuse Washington policy-makers of the idea that it would be easy to topple the Iranian regime. His election marks to radical turn, and it is clear that non-westernized Iranians stood behind him. The Iranian regime is not a house of cards and will not collapse easily.
The recent Iran-Iraq pact, difficulties recruiting troops, and unanticipated deterioration of the US military machine are probably all factors in the promoting the abandonment of the Iranian venture This week, for the first time, 51% of the American public sees the Second Iraq War as a mistake. This information, along with other factors, might strengthen the hands of foreign policy realists in Washington and curb the Bushies appetite for adventurism.
This weeks hints that large numbers of troops would be brought home beginning next Spring suggest there has been a shift in policy. The Bush administration is also turning away from references to the "global war on terror." It certainly could not seek a modus vivendi with Iran while using such language. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is in place in Baghdad and is equipped to begin repair relations with Tehran. Without improvfed relations with Iran, it, will not be able to disentangle ourselves from Iraq while saving face and having some influence on the flow of its oil.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Sunday, July 24, 2005
TRIVIALIZING THE ROVE SCANDAL: A DEMONSTRATION OF THE MEDIA'S WEAKNESS AND THE INCREDIBLE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GOP INFORMATION MACHINE
Ambassador Joseph Wilson published an op-ed piece in The New York Times two years ago, criticizing the Bush claim that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium in Niger. Days later, Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a covert CIA agent in Bob Novak’s column.
At the same time, journalist Matt Cooper was learning of her identity from a high White House source. It was said that Novak called cable television analyst Chris Matthews to announce it was open season on Plame, but Matthews would not confirm this account. Wilson openly accused Rove of being the leak From the beginning of the scandal, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr., chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney has been accused of mentioning Plame’s identity to reporters in the days before the Novak article appeared. For the next two years, the White House insisted Rove was not involved, and President Bush said he would fire the leaker.
Since July 10, 2005, we have know that Karl Rove told journalist Matthew Cooper that Joe Wilson was sent to Niger by "Wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues...." President Bush modified his position to saying he would fire a leaker if the law had been broken.
Rove reported the conversation with Cooper to Stephen Hadley in the NSC office, saying he was only trying to do Cooper a favor by steering him away from taking Wilson’s charges very seriously. According to the Associated Press, Rove told a grand jury he discussed Plame with both Cooper and Novak, but insisted that his intention was not to reveal her identity as a covert agent.
It is ironic that Ms. Miller has wound up in prison to protect a confidential source or sources in the Bush administration, which she served so well printing false information about weapons of mass destruction which the Bushg administration had fed her. The claimed right to protect confidential sources is based on the press's role as a watchdog of government. In this case, a reporter is in jail protecting a government source could have broken the law.
Rove was questioned three times by investigators and said he learned of her identity from reporters, including Tim Russert, who has denied this. Libby has also said he learned of her identity from reporters A June 10, 2003 classified State Department memo later turned up which revealed in a paragraph, marked "S" for secret, that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative. Rove said he had not seen the memo before his conversations with Cooper and Novak.
The administration empowered a criminal investigation of the leak. This satisfied critics for some time and bought valuable time for the White House and the Republican information machine to reframe the issues involved. Initially, a matter of potential criminal conduct was involved. It clearly involved despicable political conduct, and whole matter begged the question of whether the administration was again lying to the American people, as it allegedly had in ginning up sentiment for war.
Over time, the formidable publicity effort– aided and abetted by all all but a few conservative journalists–- cast aspersions on the honesty and motives of the Wilsons and reduced the question to one of pure politics. While not attacking the Wilsons, even David Gergen
contributed to the effort saying the outing of Mrs. Wilson was just ordinary Washington politics.
Boys will be boys, and her ruined career and the fate of her covert contacts must have been mere collateral damage.
Critics of the Wilsons have also insisted she was not a covert agent under the meaning of the law, even though the CIA had stated she was "an employee operating under cover." From the beginning of this sorry mess, the White House and the Republican information machine have attacked the Wilsons by claiming the trip to Niger was a "boondoggle" and an example of "nepotism." In fact Joe Wilson was an old Niger hand and undertook the assignment without pay. His expenses were reimbursed. His wife even lacked the authority to send him.
CBS News rarely reported on the case, just as it usually ignored the charges against John Bolton who had been nominated to be ambassador to the UN. Burned by its mishandling of charges regarding George W. Bush’s Texas Air Guard service, it simply steered clear of the Rove investigation, as though it involved mere politics. Under Republican control, the two Houses of Congress showed no interest in the matter, but Democrats did conduct an informal, unofficial hearing on the Rove matter. On the PBS program "Reliable Sources," which is supposed to render a balanced account of how the press handles major stories, the host complained that the Rove story had driven the Senator Dick Durbin story off the front page. Durbin , echoing the International Red Cross, had said that some of the abuse of detainees reminded him of Nazi practices. To press fairness watchdog Howard Kurtz, the Durbin remark and Rove matter were both simply political flaps.
Prosecutor Joseph Fitzgerald seems to have persuaded panel of judges that the Intelligence Identity Protection Act could have been violated. However, the law is very tightly drawn, defines covert very narrowly, and specifies that the leaker must have done so with the full intention of exposing a covert agent. Some observers believe it would be almost impossible to prove this. John Wesley Dean has suggested that indictments could be more readily obtained under two other sections of the U.S. code. However, to a layman’s reading, it would seem hard to apply these statutes. White House personnel sign nondisclosure agreements, promising they will not reveal classified information. Fitzgerald could also be looking at a violation of this agreement.
The whole thing might simply go away as it has been reported that Fitzgerald's power to investigate will expire in October, and the Justice Department official he reports to has been replaced with someone close to Bush. The press cannot be counted upon to keep the matter alive or to help in getting to the bottom of the scandal.
The Republican controlled Congress has refused to investigate this possible violation of lasws governing national security. Normally, the CIA automatically does a damage assessment after a breach of security like this. The assessment is then sent to the committees in Congress that deal with security matters. No assessment has been sent to Congress, and had one indicated the damage were minimal it would have been leaked to the press by now.
The investigation has bought time for the administration’s critics to trivialize the lying and ugly tactics that occurred. It has also resulted in the jailing of reporter Judith Miller, who refused to reveal sources for a story she did not write about the leak. In her first days in jail, she was even forced top sleep on the floor. Her jailing is a substantial dividend for people intent on controlling the press. It is likely to still further erode the mainstream press’s interest in investigative journalism.
My other sites are:
http://mysite.verizon.net/resox2t6/thelakeeriereporter/
www.AmericanImpereium.BlogSpot.com
www.ForwardAmerica2.BlogSpot.com
At the same time, journalist Matt Cooper was learning of her identity from a high White House source. It was said that Novak called cable television analyst Chris Matthews to announce it was open season on Plame, but Matthews would not confirm this account. Wilson openly accused Rove of being the leak From the beginning of the scandal, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr., chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney has been accused of mentioning Plame’s identity to reporters in the days before the Novak article appeared. For the next two years, the White House insisted Rove was not involved, and President Bush said he would fire the leaker.
Since July 10, 2005, we have know that Karl Rove told journalist Matthew Cooper that Joe Wilson was sent to Niger by "Wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues...." President Bush modified his position to saying he would fire a leaker if the law had been broken.
Rove reported the conversation with Cooper to Stephen Hadley in the NSC office, saying he was only trying to do Cooper a favor by steering him away from taking Wilson’s charges very seriously. According to the Associated Press, Rove told a grand jury he discussed Plame with both Cooper and Novak, but insisted that his intention was not to reveal her identity as a covert agent.
It is ironic that Ms. Miller has wound up in prison to protect a confidential source or sources in the Bush administration, which she served so well printing false information about weapons of mass destruction which the Bushg administration had fed her. The claimed right to protect confidential sources is based on the press's role as a watchdog of government. In this case, a reporter is in jail protecting a government source could have broken the law.
Rove was questioned three times by investigators and said he learned of her identity from reporters, including Tim Russert, who has denied this. Libby has also said he learned of her identity from reporters A June 10, 2003 classified State Department memo later turned up which revealed in a paragraph, marked "S" for secret, that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative. Rove said he had not seen the memo before his conversations with Cooper and Novak.
The administration empowered a criminal investigation of the leak. This satisfied critics for some time and bought valuable time for the White House and the Republican information machine to reframe the issues involved. Initially, a matter of potential criminal conduct was involved. It clearly involved despicable political conduct, and whole matter begged the question of whether the administration was again lying to the American people, as it allegedly had in ginning up sentiment for war.
Over time, the formidable publicity effort– aided and abetted by all all but a few conservative journalists–- cast aspersions on the honesty and motives of the Wilsons and reduced the question to one of pure politics. While not attacking the Wilsons, even David Gergen
contributed to the effort saying the outing of Mrs. Wilson was just ordinary Washington politics.
Boys will be boys, and her ruined career and the fate of her covert contacts must have been mere collateral damage.
Critics of the Wilsons have also insisted she was not a covert agent under the meaning of the law, even though the CIA had stated she was "an employee operating under cover." From the beginning of this sorry mess, the White House and the Republican information machine have attacked the Wilsons by claiming the trip to Niger was a "boondoggle" and an example of "nepotism." In fact Joe Wilson was an old Niger hand and undertook the assignment without pay. His expenses were reimbursed. His wife even lacked the authority to send him.
CBS News rarely reported on the case, just as it usually ignored the charges against John Bolton who had been nominated to be ambassador to the UN. Burned by its mishandling of charges regarding George W. Bush’s Texas Air Guard service, it simply steered clear of the Rove investigation, as though it involved mere politics. Under Republican control, the two Houses of Congress showed no interest in the matter, but Democrats did conduct an informal, unofficial hearing on the Rove matter. On the PBS program "Reliable Sources," which is supposed to render a balanced account of how the press handles major stories, the host complained that the Rove story had driven the Senator Dick Durbin story off the front page. Durbin , echoing the International Red Cross, had said that some of the abuse of detainees reminded him of Nazi practices. To press fairness watchdog Howard Kurtz, the Durbin remark and Rove matter were both simply political flaps.
Prosecutor Joseph Fitzgerald seems to have persuaded panel of judges that the Intelligence Identity Protection Act could have been violated. However, the law is very tightly drawn, defines covert very narrowly, and specifies that the leaker must have done so with the full intention of exposing a covert agent. Some observers believe it would be almost impossible to prove this. John Wesley Dean has suggested that indictments could be more readily obtained under two other sections of the U.S. code. However, to a layman’s reading, it would seem hard to apply these statutes. White House personnel sign nondisclosure agreements, promising they will not reveal classified information. Fitzgerald could also be looking at a violation of this agreement.
The whole thing might simply go away as it has been reported that Fitzgerald's power to investigate will expire in October, and the Justice Department official he reports to has been replaced with someone close to Bush. The press cannot be counted upon to keep the matter alive or to help in getting to the bottom of the scandal.
The Republican controlled Congress has refused to investigate this possible violation of lasws governing national security. Normally, the CIA automatically does a damage assessment after a breach of security like this. The assessment is then sent to the committees in Congress that deal with security matters. No assessment has been sent to Congress, and had one indicated the damage were minimal it would have been leaked to the press by now.
The investigation has bought time for the administration’s critics to trivialize the lying and ugly tactics that occurred. It has also resulted in the jailing of reporter Judith Miller, who refused to reveal sources for a story she did not write about the leak. In her first days in jail, she was even forced top sleep on the floor. Her jailing is a substantial dividend for people intent on controlling the press. It is likely to still further erode the mainstream press’s interest in investigative journalism.
My other sites are:
http://mysite.verizon.net/resox2t6/thelakeeriereporter/
www.AmericanImpereium.BlogSpot.com
www.ForwardAmerica2.BlogSpot.com
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Judith Miller's Incarceration and the Expanding Threat to A Free Press
David Broder, other reporters, and AP have avoided condemning Karl Rove for outing CIA agent Valerie Plame. They argue that he did not mention her by name, only saying she was Joe Wilson’s wife. Moreover, Rove only said she worked for the CIA; he did not act as a covert operative. It is now certain that Rove told Matt Cooper that Wilson’s wife was with the CIA, but it was only because the virtuous deputy chief of staff was trying to warn the Time reporter off a sensitive story. It could not have been to suggest Wilson would not have gotten the Niger assignment without her assistance. A standard conservative claim is that Rove was really not outing a covert agent.
If Rove wanted to honor the law and not out an agent, he could have avoided saying anything about her. Period. Yet, most of the mainstream media, has aired these RNC talking points--, using the he said-she said--, argued that his approach did not calls for no judgment and no investigation. Some of the mainstream media even repeats the charge that Democrats who worry about corruption–DeLay, Cunningham, or Rove– are simply reciting the nasty concerns of the wild people at Move On.org
Now there is Judith Miller in prison for not disclosing her sources in an investigation of who outed Plame to the press. She did not partipate in the original story. Now we learn she has been sleeping on a cold floor because there is not a bed for her. What is this all about but discouraging an investigative press? Her story grows more complex by the day. It is generally thought that she was an instrument of the Vice President's office in publicizing questionable information about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and that she was a confidant of Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of Staff. After 85 days in jail, she accepted a release on condition that Fitzgerald only question her about Libby. She subsequently retired from the New York Times in part because some at the paper believed she had not revealled to her editor everything about her conversations with Libby.
Libby was subsequently indicted for obstruction and lying. Because Patrick Fitzgerald said that Libby was the first to reveal Plame's position, famed reporter Bob Woodward came forward to reveal that some othr unnamed person in the White House had told him about Plame a week or so before Libby told Miller. Woodward had all along said this matter did not involve illegalities and was mere politics.
Scooter is not likely to roll over on Cheney. He knows as we all do that Bush Sr. pardoned 6 people involved in Iran-Contra, and that there was almost no adverse public reaction. Chances that Bush II would pardon Scooter if this becoems necessary appear very good.
At the least, the mainstream press should frame her story in the context of an aready declining investigative press. Maybe that is due to economics and/or the effectiveness of entertainment journalism.
Maybe a few thoughtful writers of commentary columns would have placed this in the context of an increasingly cowed press. There is certainly no lack of evidence that the press is become very, very cautious. Of course there is little evidence to prove anyone intentionally wants to cow the press. Still the contextual evidence is worth considering.
-- Hiring, with federal funds, three journalists to sell Bush programs
-- Hiring Ketchum and Associates, again with federal funds, to rank outlets and journalists--maybe compiling an enemies list
-- Stripping Helen Thomas of her position as senior member of White House press corps
-- Reducing access to sources for journalists who write tough stories. Cheney keeping New York Times reporters off Air Force Two ( petty-petulent- and paranoic for such an intelligent man!)
-- Overreaction and distortion of Newsweek's recent error
-- Public Broadcasting changes: three ombudsmen--all Repubublicans!-- to monitor political content, paying consultants to monitor Moyers and three others, featuring the editorial page writers of one conservative paper with no one to offer balance, etc
-- Keeping Jeff Gannon in press conferences to lob softball questions with invented quotes from Democrats. Subsequently Gannon referenced a top secret document in questioning Joe Wilson about his wife. If the investigation of Plamegate reveals where he got the document, it can be considered straight-forward and a success.
-- Continual complaints about a liberal media, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Maybe most jouralists lean a bit left, but they bend over backward to exclude information that will arouse the ire of conservative readers. In basketball, this would be called playing the ref with great success.
Finally, some respected unembedded journalists have had special problems in Iraq. Maybe this claim should not be mentioned became this is unthinkable and would make questions about administration theory appear radical, conspiratorial, and completely over tie top.
If today’s standards mandating self-censorship were applicable in the 1770s, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, John Adams, and Tom Paine would not have had a hearing!
.
If Rove wanted to honor the law and not out an agent, he could have avoided saying anything about her. Period. Yet, most of the mainstream media, has aired these RNC talking points--, using the he said-she said--, argued that his approach did not calls for no judgment and no investigation. Some of the mainstream media even repeats the charge that Democrats who worry about corruption–DeLay, Cunningham, or Rove– are simply reciting the nasty concerns of the wild people at Move On.org
Now there is Judith Miller in prison for not disclosing her sources in an investigation of who outed Plame to the press. She did not partipate in the original story. Now we learn she has been sleeping on a cold floor because there is not a bed for her. What is this all about but discouraging an investigative press? Her story grows more complex by the day. It is generally thought that she was an instrument of the Vice President's office in publicizing questionable information about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and that she was a confidant of Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of Staff. After 85 days in jail, she accepted a release on condition that Fitzgerald only question her about Libby. She subsequently retired from the New York Times in part because some at the paper believed she had not revealled to her editor everything about her conversations with Libby.
Libby was subsequently indicted for obstruction and lying. Because Patrick Fitzgerald said that Libby was the first to reveal Plame's position, famed reporter Bob Woodward came forward to reveal that some othr unnamed person in the White House had told him about Plame a week or so before Libby told Miller. Woodward had all along said this matter did not involve illegalities and was mere politics.
Scooter is not likely to roll over on Cheney. He knows as we all do that Bush Sr. pardoned 6 people involved in Iran-Contra, and that there was almost no adverse public reaction. Chances that Bush II would pardon Scooter if this becoems necessary appear very good.
At the least, the mainstream press should frame her story in the context of an aready declining investigative press. Maybe that is due to economics and/or the effectiveness of entertainment journalism.
Maybe a few thoughtful writers of commentary columns would have placed this in the context of an increasingly cowed press. There is certainly no lack of evidence that the press is become very, very cautious. Of course there is little evidence to prove anyone intentionally wants to cow the press. Still the contextual evidence is worth considering.
-- Hiring, with federal funds, three journalists to sell Bush programs
-- Hiring Ketchum and Associates, again with federal funds, to rank outlets and journalists--maybe compiling an enemies list
-- Stripping Helen Thomas of her position as senior member of White House press corps
-- Reducing access to sources for journalists who write tough stories. Cheney keeping New York Times reporters off Air Force Two ( petty-petulent- and paranoic for such an intelligent man!)
-- Overreaction and distortion of Newsweek's recent error
-- Public Broadcasting changes: three ombudsmen--all Repubublicans!-- to monitor political content, paying consultants to monitor Moyers and three others, featuring the editorial page writers of one conservative paper with no one to offer balance, etc
-- Keeping Jeff Gannon in press conferences to lob softball questions with invented quotes from Democrats. Subsequently Gannon referenced a top secret document in questioning Joe Wilson about his wife. If the investigation of Plamegate reveals where he got the document, it can be considered straight-forward and a success.
-- Continual complaints about a liberal media, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Maybe most jouralists lean a bit left, but they bend over backward to exclude information that will arouse the ire of conservative readers. In basketball, this would be called playing the ref with great success.
Finally, some respected unembedded journalists have had special problems in Iraq. Maybe this claim should not be mentioned became this is unthinkable and would make questions about administration theory appear radical, conspiratorial, and completely over tie top.
If today’s standards mandating self-censorship were applicable in the 1770s, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, John Adams, and Tom Paine would not have had a hearing!
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)