BakerMuckraker 
 
Blogs in the Month of July - 2005

    -  July 29, I SPY A PROBLEM
    -  July 28, WHAT A BLAST
    -  July 27, A PATAKI-larly MEDIOCRE PREZ
    -  July 26, ROBERTS RULES OF ODOR
    -  July 25, OILY REPORTING!; INTEL V. SMART
    -  July 22, SUDAN RUDE!; RED STATE DEBAUCHERY
    -  July 21, HURRIED PATRIOTS; DEEP QUESTIONS
    -  July 20, SHIELD LAW; SOCIETY YUCKS; GAYNE IN SPAIN
    -  July 19, KICKING ASH; RETIREES UNDER SIEGE; SPACE INVADERS
    -  July 18, NEGRO LEAGUES; SPYING ; PROPAGANDA; CLUSTER BOMBS
    -  July 15, SELF-HYPE; WAL-MART ; CANDOR-CHALLENGED
    -  July 14, WHITEHOUSE CHAT; 0000 CALCUTTA! ; SUPERSLUICE ME
    -  July 13, HELPING OUT WOLF BLITZER
    -  July 12, HANDS-FREE HAVOC; RADICALISM; FACTS VS BALANCE
    -  July 11, FORM VS SUBSTANCE IN PLAME
    -  July 08, GRIM AND BEAR IT; HALLIBURTON; BANK SHOT
    -  July 06, MORE MILLER FOR THE RUMOR MILL
    -  July 05, MILLER MULLER/PLAME MYSTERY
    -  July 01, WHY I LOVE HOLIDAY WEEKENDS
 

You may have seen in today's news that the Administration is releasing some, but not all, of its files from Judge John G. Roberts's days working for the federal government. Included for scrutiny of the Supreme Court nominee will be documents from his days in the White House counsel's office and the Justice Department during the Reagan administration. What won't be included are papers from his days working the Solicitor General's office during the tenure of the current president's father, George HW Bush.

Democrats are insisting that those files, too, should be released, as they could shed light on Roberts's thinking on matters that might come before the court -- notably in civil rights cases. The White House says no-go on those files.

This is kind of interesting, because it continues a pattern of the younger Bush preventing the release of information from the period when his father was in Washington, either as vice president or president. (Click here to read a 2002 article of mine on the subject.)  This resistance began almost immediately upon George W's ascension in 2001, when his administration began blocking the routine release of documents from dad's days as vice president. Now why was that? Does it have to do with efforts to keep bottled up details on what Bush senior did in relation to the Iran-Contra scandal -- or any number of other still-murky matters? It would certainly be intriguing to learn more. 

In any case, this past January represented another disclosure milestone. Twelve years had passed since Bush senior left office, and, under the Presidential Records Act, it was time to release all documents from the George HW. Bush White House, save the most highly sensitive (hence the really good stuff -- but it's likely that some gems would emerge anyway).

Administration sources told the New York Times that Roberts' papers from that period aren't covered by the Act, because they record "sensitive, deliberative, confidential" conversations among administration lawyers in developing cases for argument before the Supreme Court.

But that's hardly all they would show. Plenty else was of concern to the Solicitor General's office, which was busy being helpful to Iran-Contra conspirators such as Admiral John Poindexter, and hostile to then-Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh. What was going on at the Solicitor General's office, and being said about those still-murky times might shed light not just on Roberts, but on the president's father -- and maybe even explain a little about why George HW Bush is so fond of Judge Roberts. 

A not-irrelevant side consideration is the identity of Roberts's boss in those days. The Solicitor General was a fellow named Kenneth Starr, who went on to be the point man in the highly partisan witch hunt against Bill Clinton that paralyzed the country over somewhat more trivial matters than those that bedevil the current administration. Of course, that probably depends on what one's definition of "is" is.

---

A new book called Sham, by Steve Salerno, scrutinizes the mammoth, lucrative and largely fraudulent U.S. self-help industry. I’ve long been mega-peeved with our society’s love affair with having others tell us what we need to do to be happy, successful, etc. Especially since most of those people (Tony Robbins, and, yes, gasp, even Oprah) are essentially showmen and –women, more about razzle-dazzle than practical profundity.

I haven’t read Sham yet, but I did read a review in today’s Journal, and zeroed in on comment about this country’s tendency to overaccentuate self-esteem. I think of all those parents I hear telling their kids how great they are for having made an ugly painting or an efficient poopoo, or the obviously depressed people who go around telling perfect strangers how “centered” and “spiritual” they are.

Building up unwarranted self-esteem is no substitute for the real thing: earning it. You have to do something worthwhile with your life to feel good about yourself – well, unless you’re Karl Rove, I suppose.

That U.S. society increasingly confuses unjustified self-esteem with true worth is apparent in one math abilities study. American children ranked last in competency among those from eight different countries. The highest scorers were South Koreans. Paradoxically, the Americans had the highest opinion of their math capabilities, and the South Koreans the lowest.

It’s not hard to find parallels in the sorts of people we now hold up as role models, buy books from, or elect to the highest office in the land. They claim to be great, but – c’mon. Take a look under the hood.

Sort of apropos of that, and sort of not, but still amusing and relevant, this resurrected Somerset Maugham quote from my friend  Sam Smith of Progressive Review:

 >The Americans who are the most efficient people on earth. . . have invented so wide a range of pithy and hackneyed phrases that they can carry on a conversation without giving a moment's reflection to what they are saying and so leave their minds free to consider the more important matters of big business and fornication.<

Indeed, so much of it these days is about making #@%!_ing money. Especially if you're good at telling people how great you are, and how great they are, or will be, very shortly, just as soon as they do what you tell them...   Don't forget to drop a buck on your way out..

WAL-MART

Another worthy, courtesy of Sam's site:

>WAL-MART WORKER RIGHTS

American Rights at Work has launched a web site spotlighting the retail giant’s unfair practices in the workplace.  The site will also serve as a platform to enable the public to communicate their opposition to Wal-Mart’s anti-union behavior. "When Wal-Mart employees attempt to stand up for themselves and try to form a union, they face threats, propaganda, discrimination, intimidation, and even firings in retaliation," said David Bonior, Chair of American Rights at Work:

- The company taps into calls and emails from stores around the country to monitor whether anyone is talking about forming a union.

- Store officials receive a toolkit to "Remaining Union Free" and are encouraged to call a hotline at the first sign of any interest in a union.

- Wal-Mart dispatches a rapid-response anti-union squad at any indication of its employees considering union formation.

www.WalMartWorkersRights.org  

CANDOR-CHALLENGED

Sam, a longtime Democrat who had very little good to say about the Clintons when they ran the country, remains highly wary of Hillary. Whatever one thinks of her, a little scrutiny now can’t be a bad thing for the republic. He says that she has told congressional committee investigations “I don’t recall” or something similar 50 times. That doesn’t sound a whole lot better than the current bunch on the candor front. And we certainly could use a little bracing candor right about now. 

Speaking of which: How about the language Time staffers use when discussing confidentiality arrangements with master leaker Karl Rove? Time’s Matthew Cooper said they needed to treat Rove's pearls as  'DOUBLE SUPER SECRET BACKGROUND.' The Daily Show’s wicked Stephen Colbert defined that for viewers: 

>It's just like regular background but with no tagbacks, frontsies or backsies, taken to infinity plus one on opposite day, circle circle dot dot now you've got a cootie shot. It was first pioneered by Edward R. Murrow. <

That’s pretty funny. If it’s not to you, ask someone else. They’ll explain.

---

Thursday, July 14, 2005

WHITEHOUSE CHAT; 0000 CALCUTTA! ; SUPERSLUICE ME

WHITE HOUSE CHAT

Have you visited the interactive online forum, Ask the White House? It’s found on the website www.whitehouse.gov  and you can ask real questions of real administration officials.

According to the Wall Street Journal, many Americans want to know about intimate details in the lives of the Bushes’ Scottish Terriers, Barney and Miss Beazley. One visitor asked Laura Bush’s spokesman, “Why does the President carry Barney up and down the stairs on Air Force One? Is he too short to do it on his own?” Now, the spokesman could have hedged, could have said that he really couldn’t comment, but he bravely answered the question without restraint: “It would take Barney a long time to get up the stairs of Air Force One if the President didn’t carry him.”

I went to the site today, and saw that the next chat is at 4pm today with Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. I won’t be free then, but perhaps someone else can ask about Ms. Spellings’ favorite recipe for cupcakes. I certainly would not advise asking something rude, like maybe about the No Child Left Behind program, and what statistics they might have on whether fewer children are being ‘left behind’ in any meaningful sense of the phrase. 

Actually, I was hoping that maybe Karl Rove was going to take some questions. I’d certainly like to know more about the outrageous smear that the president’s opponents are perpetrating against Mr Rove. Here’s what I would ask:

‘Why are your opponents determined to criticize you for leaking the name of a CIA covert operative, Valerie Plame, when you were obviously doing that in the name of national security? I mean, haven’t those idiots heard of the “No Agent Left Behind” program? It never amazes me how ill-informed some people are, resulting in a lack of appropriate patriotism. More importantly, Mr. Rove, do you have a dog?”

0000 CALCUTTA!

I see mention (WSJ again) that a law toughening up financial disclosure laws for corporations, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, has had an unforeseen consequence: creating jobs in India. Corporations are finding that they can save big bucks on the “costly and complicated” compliance by shipping the work to eager beavers in Mumbai and Calcutta.

I’d suggest going a step further: why not use Indian prosecutors to go after corporate fraud? Think how much could be saved if the proceedings against Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom could have taken place in Delhi. In fact, now that Ebbers faces 25 years or so of jail time, wouldn’t it be much more cost-effective to have him serve his time on the Indian subcontinent? It would be ever so much cheaper. Over the course of his sentence, we could be savings many millions. That, it seems, would be another step in the right direction.

As time passes, look to this space for more ideas on outsourcing to save money. Pretty soon, none of us will have to pay anything for anything. Yippideedodah!

SUPERSLUICE ME

Now, to stop being serious for a moment…. 

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has asked the FDA for warning labels on sugary sodas and fruit drinks. They want people to know that over-consumption can make people fat and lead to illness. You can be sure that the food industry will howl over this, and that the ‘consumer’ front groups they fund will be out with a barrage of ads criticizing the idea as ridiculous over-regulation. Of course, we know that the skull-and-crossbones routine with cigarette packs didn’t stop too many people from lighting up, but it’s nice still to have the information there if you want it. And after all, the staggering obesity we see in this country is no laughing matter. In fact, the massive disfiguring, immobilizing and sickening of an entire population cannot be easily sloughed off.  Dealing with it is a kind of ‘national security’ concern too.

---

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

HELPING OUT WOLF BLITZER

In re the Valerie Plame Affair, there’s the usual lack of sophistication to the tv political talk shows. The fundamental failure of such shows as tools of enlightenment has long been a teeth-gnasher for me (see my Columbia Journalism Review piece from 2000 about those ridiculous Sunday morning gabfests.)

These programs have a chance to provide viewers with more than just the calculated spew of professional spinmeisters. The anchors can correct misstatements, and provide crucial perspective and context to the self-serving blather that only vaguely resembles news. But instead, those seeking to score points, even ridiculously incorrect points, often manage to get their poison balloons out there despite the occasional incoming dart from the interlocutors.

For example, the Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman has been around the dial trying to soften up the criticism of Karl Rove for leaking the identity of Plame, a covert CIA operative. Here he is on CNN’S Wolf Blitzer Reports yesterday.

Here are Ken’s comments, and Wolf’s helpful but a bit feeble and overly amiable questions and interjections, and, in brackets, what I was thinking, or willing Wolf to say or do: [typos in the transcript are courtesy of CNN, not me]

-----------------

MEHLMAN: I've known Karl for a number of years is, first of all, he's a friend. He's a good public servant. He's somebody that has the highest ethical standards, and he's somebody that very clearly, as you pointed out, has stated that he was not the leaker. And I believe that he is -- I know he is fully cooperating with this investigation. [WAIT A MINUTE, KEN. I ADMIT THAT KARL IS A GREAT GUY TO HAVE A DRINK WITH, BUT HE’S ALSO LEAK CENTRAL. HE CALLS OVER HERE ALL THE TIME WITH STUFF HE WANTS TO DROP ON ENEMIES, AND, IN THIS CASE, HAS ESSENTIALLY BEEN CONFIRMED AS THE LEAKER, OR PERHAPS ONE OF SEVERAL]

What's so unfortunate, Wolf, and what we're seeing is unprecedented, is the fact that people like John Kerry, someone who ran for president, Hillary Clinton, former first lady, Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democrat Party, would follow the angry left and MoveOn.org. [WAIT A MINUTE, KEN. THAT’S YOUR BEST SHOT AT ADDRESSING THIS SERIOUS CHARGE?]

BLITZER: When you say...

MEHLMAN: ... try to smear someone.

BLITZER: When you say you know he's not the leaker, in the "TIME" magazine -- Matt Cooper in the e-mail he had with his editors before the Bob Novak story appeared in the "Chicago Sun-Times" and other newspapers. He wrote in one of his e-mails, "It was K.R.," referring to Karl Rove. "It was, K.R. [Karl Rove] said, Wilson's wife who apparently works at the agency on WMD [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip" -- referring to Joe Wilson's trip -- "to Niger." He's telling Matthew Cooper that Joe Wilson's wife, an operative at the CIA, was involved in getting this trip going.

MEHLMAN: Looking at those e-mails, what I saw is Karl Rove discouraging Matthew Cooper from writing a story that was, in fact, false. Karl was right; Joe Wilson was wrong. The story was false. It was based on a false premise, and, of course, the conclusion was false. So...  [DOES NOT COMPUTE]

BLITZER: When you say the story was false, is there any evidence Niger was sending uranium, enriched uranium to Iraq?

MEHLMAN: What Joe Wilson alleged was that the vice president, then he said the CIA director sent him to Niger. He then alleged that he wrote a report which positively proved that, in fact, that wasn't occurring and that the vice president sat on the report. [HUH?]

BLITZER: But the upshot of his bottom line report to the CIA was there was no evidence uranium, enriched uranium, yellow cake, as it's called, was being sent to Iraq. So he was right on that.

MEHLMAN: Well, both the Senate Intelligence Committee and others who have studied it have found that, in fact, his report was largely irrelevant to that finding.
[HUH?]

BLITZER: It was not conclusive, they concluded, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee. [HUH?]

MEHLMAN: But...

BLITZER: But let's get back to issue of Karl Rove and his conversations with Matt Cooper, because you were there inside the White House. Were there meetings, when you were the political director, on what to do involving Joe Wilson, how to deal with this problem that erupted after he wrote that op-ed piece in "the New York Times"?

MEHLMAN: I recall -- I don't recall those meetings occurring. What I recall was, at the time, discussing the important issues that we were facing, which is exactly what Karl Rove is doing now. [OH, THAT WASN’T AN IMPORTANT ISSUE? THAT WAS AN UNIMPORTANT ISSUE, WHETHER THE WAR WITH IRAQ WAS JUSTIFIED?]

You heard in your earlier report from Suzanne Malveaux, what Karl Rove was doing '03 is what he's doing in 2005, and that is he's working for an energy policy, working to make sure that we have judges confirmed with unprecedented consultation. He was today, I know -- he and I talked about working to make sure we passed CAFTA in the House next week.

The fact is, this is someone who serves our president, serves our country incredibly well. It's incredibly unfortunate that there are other people out there, while he fully cooperates with the investigation, that try to smear him and thereby smear the investigation. [WHOA. SOMEONE IS TRYING TO SMEAR ROVE? I THOUGHT THIS WAS ABOUT ROVE TRYING TO SMEAR OTHERS. AREN’T YOU NOW SMEARING OTHERS YOURSELF?]

BLITZER: Karl Rove, we know, has been called before a grand jury. A lot of other White House officials have been called before a grand jury. Were you called before a grand jury?

MEHLMAN: I'm not going to comment on the specifics of this investigation. What I'm here to talk about is, unfortunately, a political smear that's occurred, and the political smear is people, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean and others...

BLITZER: Well, why can't you tell us if you've been asked to testify?

MEHLMAN: I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to talk about.

BLITZER: You were working at the White House at that time.

MEHLMAN: I think it is not appropriate for me or any else to talk about where we may or may not have been testifying. [ACTUALLY, THERE’S NO LAW PREVENTING YOU FROM SAYING WHETHER YOU TESTIFIED, SO WHAT’S YOUR REAL REASON FOR NOT ANSWERING THAT QUESTION?]

What we know is that there has been full cooperation. We know that Karl Rove more than a year ago came out and said anybody that he's talked to in the press should cooperate with the -- with the prosecutor, cooperate and fully provide their information. And not withstanding that, not withstanding the White House's total cooperation, which is appropriate, you're seeing a partisan smear by the other side. [BEFORE WE GET BACK TO THE ‘SMEAR’ – NOW, YOU’VE JUST SAID THERE HAS BEEN ‘FULL COOPERATION,’ SO AREN’T YOU IN EFFECT ADMITTING THAT ROVE, AND YOU, AND EVERYBODY, HAD TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY OR AT LEAST TO ANSWER THE PROSECUTOR’S QUESTIONS?]

BLITZER: Do you -- do you believe Judy Miller should be sitting in jail right now, the "New York Times" correspondent?

MEHLMAN: I don't know the specific facts or what she did or what she did not say. I generally believe that -- that a reporter, obviously, has a privilege. At the same time a reporter who's a witness to something that may be a crime has an obligation to cooperate. And I think each person has to make a decision specifically about what they're going to do. [WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT JUDITH MILLER’S REPORTING ON THE SUBJECT OF WMD’S, WHICH WAS SO HELPFUL TO THE ADMINISTRATION? WHY DO YOU THINK SHE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO WON’T TESTIFY, GIVEN THAT EVERYONE IN THE ADMINISTRATION SIGNED WAIVERS ALLOWING REPORTERS TO REVEAL THEIR SOURCES IN THIS MATTER??]

BLITZER: But you -- have you given a waiver to reporters who may have talked to you about whether or not you authorized them to reveal...

MEHLMAN: I don't recall giving a waiver. I don't recall... [HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY NOT RECALL WHETHER YOU GAVE A WAIVER? YOU FACE POSSIBLE LEGAL PERIL IN THIS SITUATION, SO SURELY THAT GOES TO THE VERY HEART OF WHAT MATTERS MOST TO YOU]

BLITZER: The White House officials had to sign that statement.

MEHLMAN: I don't remember the specifics with respect to that. And as I said, I'm not commenting on who I may or may not have talked to as part of this investigation.

The issue here, Wolf, is that there is full compliance. There is full cooperation by Karl Rove and by the White House. And on the other side, you're seeing an unprecedented part of the smear campaign. [SO YOU’RE SAYING THAT THIS CAN BE BOILED DOWN TO THE WHITE HOUSE COOPERATING AND CRITICS SMEARING? AREN’T YOU IN ESSENCE COMPLETELY REVERSING THE EQUATION IN THE HOPES THAT YOUR POLITICAL SUPPORTERS TAKE YOUR WORD FOR THIS RATHER THAN ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE FACTS? IF THEY DID, WOULDN’T THEY BE ALARMED TO SEE THAT NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS MEAN LITTLE TO THE WHITE HOUSE WHEN THERE’S POLITICAL GAIN AT STAKE?]

BLITZER: Listen to what the president said at the time, shortly after this leak, a few months later. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The president went on to say, in response to other questions, that he would fire any such official. Do you think at that time the president knew that Karl Rove was talking about Valerie Plame with Matt Cooper of "TIME" magazine?

MEHLMAN: I don't know the answer to that question. But I think what the president's statement the other -- you just showed and what we learned this past weekend doesn't change anything at all. The fact is, Karl Rove did not leak classified information. He did not, according to what we learned this past weekend, reveal the name of anybody. He didn't even know the name, so he couldn't have revealed it.

BLITZER: But he did say that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

MEHLMAN: Well, what he did is he tried...

BLITZER: He didn't reveal her name specifically. But it wouldn't be difficult to find out her name, because Joe Wilson's biography is published all over the place. [UM, COULDN’T ANYONE LOOK UP A MARRIAGE ANNOUNCEMENT AND FIND OUT WILSON’S WIFE’S NAME, OR MAYBE ASK THEIR NEIGHBORS? ISN’T WHAT ROVE DID JUST ONE BABY STEP AWAY FROM ACTUALLY UTTERING HER NAME?]

MEHLMAN: He tried to discourage a reporter from writing a story that was false. He said it would be false. He said, "You shouldn't write it." And the reporter wrote it anyway, even though it turned out to be false. I think what Karl Rove was saying was right; what Joe Wilson was saying was wrong. [WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? AND WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO RETURN TO A POINT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MATTER AT HAND? YOU’RE NOT TRYING TO CONFUSE OUR VIEWERS, ARE YOU?]

BLITZER: Here's what Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the foreign relations committee, said on "INSIDE POLITICS" here on CNN just a little while ago. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: The fact that he didn't give her name, but identified the ambassador's wife, it's not -- doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who that is. If that occurred, at a minimum, that was incredibly bad judgment, warranting him being asked to leave.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Was it bad judgment on the part of Karl Rove to tell Matt Cooper that Joe Wilson, the former ambassador's wife, came up with this idea and worked at the CIA?

MEHLMAN: Let me say, Wolf, I think what -- according to what we've learned from this past weekend, I think what Karl Rove said turned out to be right. In fact, Joe Wilson's story was not accurate. It was based on a false premise, and he tried to discourage the writing of an inaccurate story based on that false premise. [AY YAY YAY, THERE YOU GO AGAIN. LOOK, WE HAVE A RULE HERE AT CNN THAT NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE WANT YOU BACK ON THE SHOW AGAIN, WE CANNOT ALLOW YOU TO KEEP REPEATING NONSENSE OR FALSEHOODS OR TO SPLIT HAIRS IN A DELIBERATELY DISINGENUOUS WAY, BECAUSE IT DEVALUES OUR ALLEGED COMMITMENT TO NEWS, FACTS AND TRUTH. SO NO MORE MAKING THAT CLAIM.]

Unlike Senator Biden, unlike Mrs. Clinton, unlike Chairman Dean, unlike Harry Reid, I'm not going to go out, and I'm not going to prejudge what is an investigation, which is being fully cooperated with by Karl Rove when I was at the White House, at the same time they work on the people's business.  [BUT KEN, HERE ARE SOME CLIPS OF YOU RUSHING OUT TO PREJUDGE ALL KINDS OF THINGS, WHEN IT SERVED YOUR INTEREST TO DO SO….]

I frankly think that it's unfortunate that all of these Democrat leaders aren't talking about saving Social Security, aren't talking about how we're going to have an energy plan. Instead, they're engaged in a partisan smear campaign. [ACTUALLY, TO BE FAIR, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY, ABOUT ENERGY. HERE ARE SOME CLIPS….. BUT THERE’S REALLY NO REASON THEY WOULDN’T, OR SHOULDN’T, ALSO BE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPROPER DISCLOSURE OF A SECRET INTELLIGENCE OPERATIVE’S IDENTITY FOR POLITICAL GAIN]

BLITZER: All right. We're going to continue this conversation. I'd like you to stand by. We'll take a quick break, and I'll ask you if it was the other side, if it was a Democrat involved in allegations of leaking the name of a CIA clandestine officer, how would the Republicans be acting then?

We'll take a quick break. More with Ken Mehlman right after this. [YOU KNOW WHAT? WE WERE GOING TO HAVE KEN MEHLMAN BACK AFTER A BREAK. BUT BECAUSE WE’RE PRINCIPALLY A NEWS ORGANIZATION, AND SINCE WHAT HE IS SAYING IS SO TENDENTIOUS BY ALMOST ANY OBJECTIVE MEASURE, WE AREN’T GOING TO HAVE HIM BACK. INSTEAD, WE’RE GOING TO HAVE A SHORT SPECIAL REPORT THAT LAYS OUT THE FACTS AS WE BEST UNDERSTAND THEM…..

BLITZER: Welcome back. We're continuing our conversation with Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, former White House political director, worked closely with Karl Rove.  [OH WELL, A GUY CAN ALWAYS DREAM…SIGH…..CLICK…..SILENCE. TAKE A WALK, GET SOME AIR.]

 

---

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

HANDS-FREE HAVOC; RADICALISM; FACTS VS BALANCE

HANDS-FREE HAVOC

A new study shows that using a hands-free cell phone model doesn't appreciably reduce accidents. Article on the study can be found in today's Wall Street Journal, page D5. What's interesting about this is it suggests that accidents aren't merely caused by holding a device, or even necessarily fidgeting with it. There's something, in all probability, about the essential distraction of having an intense conversation with someone who is not physically present. 

I'm guessing that this is part of a larger problem I've alluded to in the past -- our growing alienation from the immediate space, and people, around us. We're all checking mail while others are talking to us, surfing the web while professors drone on, talking loudly over the phone about personal things without consideration for others nearby. Add to that threatening others' lives with distracted driving.

 This notion of alienation is not only about being insensitive to that around us while focused on what's far away. Paradoxically, the converse is equally true, as in our indifference to the suffering of others, including, especially, those who may be impacted by US military policy whose daily impact is of no consequence at all to most of us. (See Norman Solomon's book, War Made Easy, which I reviewed for the Los Angeles Times -- he explores this concept.) When we're here, we're too often there, and when we're there, we're too often only here.    

REVELATIONS ON RADICALISM

As much as I find the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page a redoubt of the most biased, factually-challenged analysis, the news pages of the paper continue to excel. Such is the case with a frontpager today on the roots of radical Islam in a mosque with Nazi-era roots. U.S. intelligence worked with some of these extremists, but, in a story that has repeated itself elsewhere, notably in Afghanistan, lost hold over these folks as they became increasingly radical.

>"If you want to understand the structure of political Islam, you have to look at what happened in Munich," says Stefan Meining, a Munich-based historian who is studying the Islamic center. "Munich is the origin of a network that now reaches around the world."<  

There's  a great deal we don't know, or don't acknowledge, about the complexities behind the current worldwide "troubles," and it's a shame that we aren't doing more to move the topic to the top of the public agenda.

FACTS VS. BALANCE

Kenneth Tomlinson, the highly controversial head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, appeared before Congress yesterday for the first time since it was revealed that he's under investigation by CPB's inspector general for questionable actions. Tomlinson, whose notion of 'fair and balanced' may be disturbingly close to Fox News's, had paid an outsider to scrutinize shows like Bill Moyers' for bias. Under tough questioning, Tomlinson was asked if, since he supported a show based around the monolithically right-wing editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (see my comments in previous item) , "are you going to provide $5 million for The Nation Magazine?"

 I had to chuckle at that because as a periodic Nation contributor, I can attest to the magazine's paucity of funds -- but also to its commitment to journalistic standards. Though it has a liberal cast to it, and is indeed a journal of opinion, editors there are firmly grounded in basic journalism, and don't want to publish anything with incorrect information or where contrary evidence is not at least considered and acknowledged.  The same can be said for Moyers -- just because corporate officials don't like what he reported, or some wealthy or powerful individuals were angered, doesn't mean that the underpinnings of his report aren't demonstrably, factually, correct.

An example of the need for clarity on basic facts vs. propaganda can be seen in the fine report in the New York Times yesterday by the terrific reporter David Cay Johnston, that very few family farms are harmed anymore by the estate tax. This is an important factual corrective, since proponents of doing away with that tax are using family farmers, misleadingly, as the poster boys and girls for something that benefits instead the (mostly urban) very rich.

---

Monday, July 11, 2005

FORM VS SUBSTANCE IN PLAME

The so-called Valerie Plame affair (see previous posts) keeps getting murkier and more arcane. Its a hugely important story, because it may show that top Bush Administration officials orchestrated the outing of a CIA operative for political gain -- a possible crime and certainly an act of great impropriety that could cause major problems for the White House.   But the piecemeal basis on which the corporate-owned media is handling it makes it almost completely inaccessible for anyone not willing to play Sherlock Holmes.  For example, today's New York Times has an almost Kremlinesque article, and one that is even at odds with the paper's summary of what that article is supposed to be about.

When you open today's print edition of the New York Times, on the News Summary Page, you read:    

        >Time Reporter's Claim Disputed

Matthew Cooper, a reporter for Time magazine, never spoke to his confidential source the day he claimed he had received a surprising communication that would allow him to testify before a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative, the source's lawyer said. A12.  <                        

Then you turn to page A12, and the only story with any kind of connection to the subject is there. But it is a far different story. Headlined "For Time Reporter, Decision to Testify Came After Frenzied Last-Minute Calls," it presents a somewhat confusing account of the day Matthew Cooper avoided going to jail in the equally confusing Valerie Plame case, in which the name of a White House critic's wife, a CIA operative, was improperly released. But on first glance, the material mentioned on the Summary Page is not there at all.  Several reads finally locate related material buried well down in the article-- which raises the question, If the summary writer thought this was so important, why is it buried in the article itself?    

The summary  refers to Cooper's "confidential source," but he had more than one -- presidential advisor Karl Rove and Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby.  In any case, the article addresses Cooper's claim that he spoke with Libby and that Libby released him from the confidentiality pledge, allowing him to confirm in narrow terms whether the two discussed Valerie Plame (Cooper says they did not.) The article, however, has Libby's lawyer saying that Libby  merely "signed a form...he gave it back to the F.B.I. End of story. There was no other assurance."  In essence, Libby's lawyer seems to be saying that Libby had signed a general waiver allowing journalists to discuss with the investigators their contact with him -- but that he had had no actual conversation with Matt Cooper on the day Cooper finally decided to cooperate with the Grand Jury. (Cooper had claimed that there had been a dramatic development that day, with a source reaching out to him to authorize his testimony.) So Libby's lawyer -- and the Times -- are calling Cooper a liar, since Cooper says "I personally called Libby about a waiver."

Confused? Good. That's certainly what the White House must be wishing, and so far, it is getting its wishes, as everyone stumbles through a fog that, as soon as it promises to clear, suddenly grows opaque again.

---

Friday, July 8, 2005

GRIM AND BEAR IT; HALLIBURTON; BANK SHOT

GRIM AND BEAR IT

Polar bears’ numbers are declining, and are expected to continue to do so, as a result of global warming. “All of the evidence is heading in the same direction, and the trend is dramatic,” a US scientist told the Washington Post. The man, the polar bear project leader in Alaska for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, summarized the findings of a closed international meeting of experts on the world’s largest bear.

Besides this discouraging news, I was struck by the fact that the scientist, Scott Schliebe, “emphasized that he was speaking for the panel and not for the U.S. government.” By rights, as the US government’s expert, he should have been speaking for Washington, too. But the US remains the only member of the G-8 industrialized countries that has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol for reducing emissions that cause warming. When U.S. government experts have to qualify their remarks as not representing the U.S. government, then we know there’s a deeply troubling gap between the politicized top strata and those out in the field who know what they’re talking about. And, as we’ve noted elsewhere, this is not exclusive to environmental regulation. It can be seen in the gap between FBI field agents and headquarters, between FDA chiefs and FDA scientists, between soldiers in Iraq and generals in Washington. There’s a growing reality disconnect, and the consequences will surely be felt for generations.

HALLIBURTON’S HAUL

The most consequential items in the newspaper are often the most easily-missed. The other day, the New York Times (and other papers) ran without comment a small box containing a short Reuters wire article.  Headlined “Halliburton’s Iraq Job”, it read:

The United States military has signed a work order with Halliburton to do nearly $5 billion in new work in Iraq under a giant logistics contract that has so far earned the company $9.1 billion, the Army said Wednesday.

Linda Theis, a spokeswoman for the United States Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Ill., said the military signed the work order with Kellogg Brown and Root, a unit of Halliburton, in May.

The new deal, worth $4.97 billion over the next year, was not made public when it was signed because the Army did not consider that such an announcement was necessary, she said.

Left alone in its original straight, pure form, the report is about as powerful as anything blown up into a longer article replete with quotes. It says it all – except that it might have mentioned that Halliburton, which was the last employer of Vice President Cheney before he took a huge bonus and headed for the White House, has been found again and again to have cheated taxpayers on Iraq contracts it obtained without competitive bidding.

WIDE BANK SHOT

The US government is drowning in paperwork filed by financial institutions that are trying to comply with the Patriot Act’s requirement that they report suspicious transactions. As reported in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, this overkill is overwhelming the Treasury Department’s database for investigating such traffic. Government officials say the outfits are playing it defensive by basically dumping everything they have. This is troublesome not only because it bogs down the machinery and diverts it from actually finding terrorist activity, but also because it means that vast amounts of private information about account-holders is ending up in government hands that need not be.  The institutions now include not just banks but brokerage firms, casinos and check-cashing and money-transfer firms. With this carelessness, the possibilities for abuse are rife.
 

---

Wednesday, July 6, 2005

MORE MILLER FOR THE RUMOR MILL

The New York Times has until today been completely silent on the revelation that Karl Rove may have been a source on the Valerie Plame affair (see yesterday's blog first for background.) Newsweek published an article over the weekend about this, and the Internet has been bulging with the story for days longer, since pundit Lawrence O'Donnell asserted personal knowledge of this last week.

Why the reticence? More particularly, why was today's very interesting Adam Liptak article that did contain that information buried deep in the paper? And why was the Rove element not until paragraph 14? And why was the "new details emerged" section way down low? Is it because the Times didn't want to acknowledge being scooped? Or because it is conflicted about covering the story at all, since it is so deeply invested in the outcome?

Once again, this puts Times readers in the position of being the last to know. Also, while Liptak is a solid reporter and writer, as legal affairs correspondent, he puts his emphasis on the legal aspects of the story, rather than unraveling the larger mysteries. Still, the most intriguing element of his piece is probably this: the prosecutor filed papers yesterday in which he is much harsher in his criticism of the Times' Judith Miller than he is of Time's Matthew Cooper. He devoted 21 pages to Miller, and just 4 pages to Cooper. This is of course interesting because, as I noted yesterday, Miller never even wrote a thing about the Plame affair, further focusing attention on the question: Why is Judith Miller involved in this proceeding at all?

The prosecutor also seemed peeved by Miller's grandstanding, and, in response to her request to either be confined to her home or, if necessary, to a prison camp in Connecticut (in the event she is ordered jailed) wrote: "Forced vacation at a comfortable home is not a compelling form of coercion...Certainly one who can handle the desert in wartime (as Miller often brags of her WMD-search reporting days) is far better equipped than the average person jailed in a federal facility." You can just hear the cackling in the Times newsroom.

 Certainly, nobody in journalism and nobody who cares about the First Amendment wants to see the crucial whistleblower role of the anonymous source undermined. But there are other things going on here. Deeper and deeper....
 

---

Tuesday, July 5, 2005

MILLER MULLER/PLAME MYSTERY

Have you been following the incredibly complicated “Plame Affair?” It’s a strange one, hard to follow, and  possibly very important in providing insight into the administration’s behavior, and a potential enormous scandal. Yet article after article seems to elide key questions – and this includes one New York Times article from today.

Here’s the background: Essentially, someone in the Bush Administration leaked the name of a CIA operative as political revenge against her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been an outspoken critic of administration misrepresentation of “evidence” that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Wilson had been sent to Niger to check out evidence, found none, and, after the invasion of Iraq, published an opinion piece decrying the White House’s willingness to mislead the public. An administration official then leaked to columnist Robert Novak the fact that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA. Novak promptly published about it. Theories on why this was leaked mostly assume that this was a deliberate message to other potential critics inside the government to keep quiet on whatever they knew about the propaganda campaign to justify war.

In any case, based on a law barring disclosure of intelligence personnel’s names, a prosecutor began investigating the leak, and soon two other journalists -- though, mysteriously not Novak -- were told to reveal their sources. They were Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller. Cooper had run a story about Novak and the matter, and had apparently spoken to a White House source as well. But it was odd that Judith Miller be included, since she never wrote a word on the subject.

Cooper and Miller refused to turn over notes that could identify their confidential sources, and, tomorrow, a judge could order them to jail, since their appeals have run out. Meanwhile, Cooper’s bosses have agreed to turn over Cooper’s notes (over his objections.) and so he, or both he and Miller, may end up not having to do time.

I’m particularly baffled by the role in all of this of Judith Miller. As readers may know, I have chronicled her close association with neocons in the administration as she has presented highly biased reports justifying war with Iraq and attempting to diminish the United Nations. (see my website, www.russbaker.com for Nation Magazine pieces on these matters.)

Miller has seized her new role as First Amendment poster lady with alacrity. She has set up a special website. She has gone on the offensive, with television appearances and speeches galore. But based on her track record for intrigue, I have to wonder exactly the nature of her real role in all of this. One reason I wonder is because her new status has helped her mightily in avoiding culpability for her poor journalistic work over the past few years, and rehabilitated a badly tarnished image.

Here’s another: It is not clear who even brought Miller into the matter. Since she never published a word about it, why did prosecutors even target her? Apparently, her name was supplied to prosecutors by someone. But who? And why?

As I said, the net effect of all this on Miller is highly beneficial. Meanwhile, the prospect of actually going to jail is less severe than it sounds. Defendants stand to get short sentences of perhaps 60-90 days, might serve their time at home, or in a relatively comfortable minimum security facility, a la Martha Stewart. A couple of quiet months in such a place is hardly the stuff of Alcatraz, could even be the enforced equivalent of some book leave, and bestows a badge of honor on a breast that may not deserve it.