BakerMuckraker
Blogs in the Month of
April - 2006
- April 29, CATCH
A FLICK IN RIYADH, ANYONE?
- April 26, PEACE-KEEPING....IN
SAUDI ARABIA?
- April 21, THE
ROVE REPORT (from our Rove-ing Reporter)
- April 18, NOT
THAT KIND OF MOVEMENT
- April 15, A
TRAILER WORTH WATCHING
- April 12, MUCKRAKER’S
DIGITAL MAILBAG
- April 07, CAFFERTY-STRENGTH
BOOT TO DELAY
- April 04, DELAY’S
SECRET SLIPS OUT: HE’S IMMORAL!
CATCH A FLICK IN RIYADH, ANYONE?
Many people in a hurry miss the foreign features in our daily newspapers, but they’re often the best stuff. Such it is with this New York Times piece on efforts to open Saudi Arabia to film that critiques the stultifying life there under the fundamentalist Wahabi establishment. As it turns out, though, critical films are not the only thing that is verboten. So are any films at all.
>…. In "Keif al Hal" ("How's It Going?"), a big-budget Arab film due out this summer, family members find themselves torn between modernity and tradition.
The plot may seem mundane but in important ways, "Keif al Hal" is a landmark project with big ambitions. It is the first feature film from Saudi Arabia, a country with not a single legal movie theater.
The movie, financed by a Saudi prince, aims not only to raise delicate questions about social oppression but also to generate a Saudi movie industry and force the opening of theaters, some of which are reportedly under construction without licenses or legal status. <
That’s one good thing about a kingdom with so many wives, hence so many princes. Every once in a while, a gutsy reformer shows up.
>…. "Keif al Hal," produced by Rotana, one of the Middle East's fastest growing media companies, which is owned by the Saudi billionaire Prince Walid bin Talal, takes things several steps further, with a relatively big-budget, mainstream film that aims to provoke questions.
"I am correcting a big mistake, that is all," said Prince Walid, sitting in his office high above Riyadh. "I want to tell Arab youth: You deserve to be entertained, you have the right to watch movies, you have the right to listen to music."<
No! No! Not music!
To be sure, not all music has a salutary effect (especially where gangsta-bragging about ‘offing’ some ‘ho’), but could the lack of anything remotely entertaining to do perhaps have some connection with the fact that almost all of those blowing themselves and everyone else up on 9/11 were young Saudis? Admittedly, the perpetrators generally hadn’t lived in the desert kingdom for quite a while, but they did grow up in that atmosphere – where listening to a lunatic imam preach hatred was probably the default form of amusement.
>The mere existence of the film will be a challenge, he says. Saudi Arabia does produce dramas and soap operas for television, and satellites dishes can pick up movie channels and music videos, though they are not legal. But movie theaters, where the sexes can mingle in the dark, have until now remained out of the question. Last year, a movie theater in Jidda opened briefly to show children's films, but the vice patrol shuttered it within weeks.
Prince Walid, who commands special power within Saudi Arabia, is betting he can present the vice police with a fait accompli.
"There is nothing in Islam — and I've researched this thoroughly — not one iota that says you can't have movies," he said. "So what I am doing right now is causing change."
Nonetheless, he shot the film, written by an Egyptian and filmed by a Canadian, in Dubai. <
The film makes use of jokes and one-liners to tell the story of Saudi Arabia's hidden lives. In one scene the fundamentalist Khaled and his friend crash in on the grandfather and several of his grandchildren, believing they were planning to watch a racy film, only to find the grandfather giving a religious sermon. In another scene, a character sends his phone number in a spitball to a woman, a common Saudi dating technique, only to discover that the woman, covered from head to toe, is his mother. <
To be fair, Muckraker did something like that once – but only in a bad dream.
WHOM TO TRUST?
Do you trust Bill O’Reilly? (this from Media Matters):
>O'Reilly
opined on why Fox News is not "a right-wing enterprise"
Bill O'Reilly stated that "some believe" Fox News "is a right-wing
enterprise" but that "I work there, and I can tell you that it is not."
O'Reilly claimed that it was "a fact that no newsperson at Fox News toes
any kind of ideological line at all." <
That’s the ludicrous state of affairs today. A rabid right-winger can assure us that the network which employs him is not right-wing – because he says so.
Not to be topped in the credibility sweepstakes, we have the following…
IN A RUSH FOR UNIVERSAL COVERAGE
Rush Limbaugh, who is against universal health coverage, is just fine with the fact that many have no doctor at all. Meanwhile, he has a whole bunch of them at the same time– and is snookering them in the bargain: [wire story from Friday]
> West Palm Beach - Rush Limbaugh was arrested Friday on prescription drug charges, law enforcement officials said....The warrant was for fraud to conceal information to obtain prescriptions…..
Prosecutors seized Limbaugh's records after learning that he received about 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months, at a pharmacy near his Palm Beach mansion. They contend that Limbaugh engaged in "doctor shopping," or illegally deceived multiple doctors to receive overlapping prescriptions.<
Muckraker certainly feels Rush’s pain. But he finds Limbaugh’s dubious assertions of ‘facts’ on matters like health insurance to a vast audience increasingly hard to swallow – and wonders why the radio networks are not pressed to enforce an expiration date on this clearly outdated act.
JUDGE (NOT JUST) JUDY
The judge in the Judy Miller jailing believes that he did the right thing – and suggests that others will be able to jail journalists for not revealing sources. [this from AP, sent in by Honorary Muckraker Steve Jensen]:
>The federal judge who jailed a former New
York Times reporter for refusing to name her source during the CIA leak
investigation defended his decision Friday. Thomas F. Hogan, chief judge
of Washington's federal district court, told a meeting of the
Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Association that he made the right call
when he ruled there was no First Amendment protection for reporters to
keep their sources confidential, especially in criminal matters.
….Hogan, who oversees grand juries, got involved in the CIA leak
investigation when Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald sought to compel
several reporters to reveal their sources and what they were told about
Plame.
…..Miller wasn't an innocent bystander, Hogan said. "She was an actor in
the commission of a crime," he said. "She was part of the transfer of
information that was a crime." <
As blog readers know, Muckraker hardly considers Miller an exemplar of conscientious investigative reporting. But the notion of a reporter being ‘an actor…[in] a crime’ is an incredibly dangerous one. Especially in a time when the government constantly works to block the flow of crucial information to the public. By definition, the more the government clamps down, and the more we, the media, object, the more likely we become ‘actors in a crime.’
Judge Hogan apparently hasn’t thought this through to its logical conclusion, or if he has, no one has made him explain where all this is going.
>The judge said he did not enjoy sending Miller to jail. But he said the
law is clear: Reporters do not have a special privilege under the First
Amendment to keep their sources secret, especially when a crime has
been committed.
Hogan predicted that the "clash" between the courts and reporters isn't
going to end any time soon, especially in Washington. Federal judges are
being asked to allow parties in civil and criminal cases to force
reporters to reveal their sources.
Libby's lawyers have issued several subpoenas to reporters and news
organizations seeking access to notes, draft articles and e-mails
discussing sources. In a civil case, a former Los Alamos scientist wants
to know who leaked information during an espionage investigation that he
says ruined his life.
Hogan said he doesn't believe the media have support for a federal
shield law in the Senate. Nor does the media have much support in
the courts, he said. He said he had heard that not one Supreme Court
justice voted to hear Miller's appeal. <
No support in the courts or the Senate? That wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the steady takeover of both institutions in recent years by opponents of reform and openness, would it? Judge Hogan might just as easily said that Bill Frist and Karl Rove aren't too enthusiastic about leaks that embarrass them -- and so will move to criminalize those leaks and shut down the reporters trying to get the stories out.
JUDY ON ASSIGNMENT?
Speaking of the intrepid Judy Miller, former Timeswoman and former confidante of the Bush Administration, there’s this odd note from the Canadian Association of Journalists:
SUNDAY BRUNCH KEYNOTE: SPEAKER TO BE DETERMINED
Judith Miller has been called away on assignment overseas and will be unable to speak at the conference as previously planned. The CAJ regrets that Ms. Miller is no longer part of the conference program but expects to announce a new brunch keynote speaker shortly.
While Ms. Miller's cancellation is due to circumstances beyond our control, the CAJ regrets any inconvenience this may cause and will issue refunds on request to those who have already purchased brunch tickets.<
Huh? What ‘assignment overseas?’ She doesn’t even work as a journalist anymore. Somebody tell our Canadian friends. Was that a typo? If one were to believe all the stories, many of them published, about Miller’s reputed Mata Hari methods, (including Scooter Libby’s mash note to her, reminding her of their special days together in Aspen) perhaps they meant to use another word starting with “assign…” [you figure it out!]
SNOW JOB CONTINUES
Speaking of Fox News, how about Fox’s Tony Snow taking over as White House Press Secretary? (Muckraker’s sources say that if Snow doesn’t work out, they’ve got Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh as backup [NOT])
Anyway, a Washington Post piece on the SnowFall, optimistically front-paged “SNOW PICK MAY SIGNAL LESS INSULAR WHITE HOUSE” and predicted that Snow will have a regular role in administration strategy. But, buried down in the article, and exhumed by Slate), was the following:
>"Bush advisers suggested that the president is not interested in altering his major decisions or philosophy." Noted one adviser, "But it still helps to have a new messenger." <
That, it seems to Muckraker, is where the real story is. Bush “is not interested” in learning anything at all from his experiences. Call it stubbornness, call it pathology. Whatever, it is something just a tad alarming. Yet the mainstream media hasn’t found a way to raise this topic with the American public. It always has to be about discrete events and pronouncements – the big things are just too hard to convey.
WHAT ELSE WE’RE NOT HEARING
A coalition of unions has launched a membership drive with television ads criticizing the enormous gap in salaries between CEOs and average workers. But MSNBC and Comedy Central have refused to run the ads – because they have policies against issue-advocacy spots.
Can anyone explain the logic in this? MSNBC and Comedy Central are all about discussions, rants and jokes based on issues, making such a decision baffling. But they’re hardly alone in shutting off another path for communicating to the public. Over the past several years, more and more broadcasting and cable companies have announced they won’t run these kinds of powerful messages. Muckraker wrote about this more than a year ago – and things are only getting worse.
Meanwhile, corporations’ messages are not considered issue advocacy – even when companies with really vile products and track records sanitize their image. That is called business as usual.
LOVING WAL-MART
Speaking of which, at least one controversial corporation is not sitting still in putting itself through the PR wash-and-dry. As noted in a Times piece recently,
>The sheer magnitude of Wal-Mart's plans to
become more environmentally friendly has been enough to give pause to
all but the most vehement of the company's critics.
The online environmental magazine Grist gave soft applause to Wal-Mart
last week in its introduction to a Q. and A. session with H. Lee Scott
Jr., the chief executive. When the company this month signed on to a
call by a group of energy executives for caps on greenhouse-gas
emissions, ''the heart of this monolithic retail Grinch grew three sizes
that day,'' writes Amanda Griscom Little, a Grist reporter, on
grist.org.
To be sure, it is a little startling to hear Wal-Mart's chief executive
bandying about phrases like ''democratizing sustainability,'' but given
that Wal-Mart plans to spend $500 million a year to, among other
initiatives, reduce its greenhouse gases, build more energy-efficient
stores and reduce packaging waste, even longtime naysayers have to take
notice.
Ms. Little points out that Wal-Mart's size -- the very thing that makes
it so vulnerable to attack -- is precisely what ''could make it a
powerful force for good for the planet.''….<
Well, maybe. But let’s always do the math on these things. How much of Wal-Mart’s responsible moves are dictated by the bottom line? Certainly, building more energy-efficient stores and reducing packaging waste is probably in the company’s own interest. If you separate out the actions that seem mostly “the right thing to do” without clearly benefiting the company’s profits, and then compare the cost of those actions with the resulting free publicity, it likely works out well again for the bean counters. Plus, it nips the rapidly-growing anti-Wal-Mart movement in the bud. No price is too high to save the business -- even becoming more responsible. But just a bit.
TOO BIG TO FAIL
Meantime, another report describes how, while many towns are trying to keep Wal-Mart out, many others are begging the company not to leave. And no wonder. Wal-Mart has shut down hundreds of smaller stores as it has moved to supercenters. But those smaller stores were so big when they opened that they ran every other retailer out of town. So, without Wal-Mart, there’s nothing there at all. Talk about a vicious circle.
LET’S CALL FEMA SOMETHING ELSE
By now, all the papers have covered the Senate report coming out about the Hurricane Katrina response. As the Los Angeles Times put it,
The Federal Emergency Management Agency should be dismantled and restructured to deal with the problems exposed by its response to Hurricane Katrina, Senate investigators have determined after a seven-month inquiry.
"We have concluded that FEMA is in shambles and beyond repair and that it should be abolished," Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who heads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said Wednesday night in a statement. <
Will we learn precisely how it got in that shape? As Paul Krugman noted in Friday’s New York Times, the agency was in great shape when Clinton left office. So what happened in the interim?
>Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the committee's ranking Democrat, faulted President Bush as well, for lack of action during the crisis and for not cooperating with the committee investigation.
"For Hurricane Katrina, the president failed to provide critical leadership when it was most needed, and that contributed to a grossly ineffective federal response," he said in a statement.<
The Democrats decided at some point to try to blame it all on Bush. But the real story is in the details – how Bush decided who should be in charge of FEMA, who those FEMA leaders really were, and what exactly they did there. That’s too complex a story for the Dems’ message machine, so they have done nothing at all to publicize the specifics, which, as readers of this blog know, can be discovered at RealNews . This highly specific account of the chicanery and malice aforethought found in the background of the two men Bush appointed to head FEMA was sent to the Democratic senate leadership (as well as to Republicans) but the leadership did nothing with the information.
>The committee's report... recommends replacing FEMA with a new National Preparedness and Response Authority, which would remain in the Department of Homeland Security. <
So that’s it – change the name. Otherwise, let sleeping dogs lie. Don’t get to the root of what was going on at FEMA – because then you’d have the basis for looking at similar patterns of malfeasance throughout the federal government. And who knows where that might lead. Maybe everyone would get so fed up they would throw everyone out of Congress and start anew.
CRONYWATCH, EPISODE 4,352
Along those lines, please take note of this Los Angeles Times report:
>A Diamond Bar [California] company headed by former Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony J. Principi could get fees exceeding $1 billion from the VA, much of it on contracts approved and amended while he ran the agency, records show.
Principi was president of the medical services company QTC Management Inc. before he joined President Bush's Cabinet in 2001. He ran the VA for four years, then returned to the firm as chairman of the board.
While he was VA secretary, Principi's past and future corporate home collected about $246 million in fees, according to VA records. Congressional Budget Office projections show the contracts could be worth as much as $1.2 billion through 2008…..
Principi, deputy VA secretary and acting secretary under President George H.W. Bush, also served as Republican chief counsel and staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee a decade ago.
…In 1996, he was named chairman of a congressional task force on veterans issues. His panel recommended having a standardized, comprehensive physical exam for outgoing military personnel. That recommendation led to exams conducted by QTC.<
Oh.
>….QTC's initial performance drew some criticism. As mandated by Congress, its work was reviewed by a private consulting firm, which said QTC's fees were much higher than expected.
A QTC hearing exam, for instance, averaged $495.55 compared with $89.80 for an in-house VA exam. Even with an adjustment for possible hidden VA costs, the difference exceeded 400%. …..<
Halliburton is said [NOT] to be negotiating for Princippi’s services, as it has some oil pipeline repairs the US government would like expensively bungled.
PEACE-KEEPING....IN SAUDI ARABIA?
Good news, chaos fans. Now it’s not just Iraq that threatens to plunge into sectarian civil war. According to the Los Angeles Times, Saudi Sunnis and Shiites are speaking up for their respective Iraqi brothers, raising fears that matters could escalate in the original oil kingdom, too.
>The conflict in Iraq has begun to spill
over onto this hardscrabble, sunburned swath of coast, breathing new
life into the ancient rivalry between the country's powerful Sunni
Muslim majority and the long-oppressed Shiite minority in one of the
most oil-rich areas of the world.
"Saudi Sunnis are defending Iraqi Sunnis, and Saudi Shiites are
defending Iraqi Shiites," said Hassan Saffar, Saudi Arabia's most
influential Shiite cleric. "There's a fear that it will cause a struggle
here."
At first, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq gave optimism to Shiites here
along Saudi Arabia's eastern coast. Unlike infuriated Sunnis, many
Shiites felt a surge of quiet hope when the U.S. arrived in Iraq three
years ago. Emboldened by their Iraqi brethren's escape from the
oppressive rule of Saddam Hussein, Shiites here and in other Sunni-ruled
nations began to demand — and win — freedoms of their own.
Bit by bit, old rules have fallen away in recent years: Saudi Shiites
won the right to publish and read sectarian literature. They can now
work as journalists, build mosques and open Shiite schools to educate
their sons.
But today, the power shift that seemed to be opening doors for the sect
is beginning to look more like a dangerous destabilization. Some Shiite
clerics here have received death threats in recent months, community
leaders say. Shiites have also been accused of harboring links to Iran,
a longtime nemesis of the Saudi government.
Sunni and Shiite clerics across the region have begun to warn against a
fitna, a severe term that refers to a civil war or division
within the Islamic faith.<
After all the promises of how the Iraq invasion was going to bring about democracy and widespread peace and happiness, Americans could be excused for throwing their own fit-na.
MEANWHILE, BACK IN NEW YORK....
Speaking of sectarian violence, New York City in recent weeks has had some incidents with mobs of Hasidim getting into it with the police. And now, there’s a succession battle within one Hasidic group, the Satmar.
Here’s the New York Post:
The death of Grand Rabbi Moses Teitelbaum heightened tensions yesterday between warring factions of the Satmar Hasidic sect.
At Teitelbaum's funeral in upstate Kiryas Joel, a scuffle broke out between members of opposing sides in the bitter succession battle between the holy man's two sons.
The brawl left two innocent men injured - Lipa Teitelbaum, one of the grand rabbi's sons, who is not involved in the succession dispute, and Moshe Friedman, the 92-year-old grand rabbi's former assistant. <
Boys, boys, boys. Cut it out.
>"It was chaos for a moment, but state troopers came in and calmed everyone down," said one witness, who claimed that the fighting erupted after a partisan of Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum, the eldest son, grabbed the microphone at the funeral and tried to give it to one of Aaron's sons.
The community has been split since 1999, when the grand rabbi selected Zalman to lead the Brooklyn congregation in Williamsburg, while Aaron continued to be in charge of the Orange County community in Kiryas Joel.
Both sides claimed victory as Zalman sat shiva, the seven-day Jewish period of mourning, last night at his father's house in Brooklyn, while Aaron did the same in Kiryas Joel.
As The Post reported yesterday, Zalman was named his father's successor. As proof, supporters produced the grand rabbi's will, which reads, "[Zalman] shall occupy my position and succeed me without any shortfall, for effective immediately I have granted him the position."
Copies of the document, written in Yiddish about five years ago, were handed out last night to hundreds who had gathered in front of Teitelbaum's home on Ross Street and Bedford Avenue. <
You’d think it was a battle over some Swami's millions.
>The state Appellate Division briefly reversed an earlier ruling putting an Aaron Teitelbaum supporter in charge of the Satmar board of directors and its $500 million in assets, including real-estate holdings, yeshivas, cemeteries, summer camps, social services and a matzo factory, sources said. <
Oh. (or...Oy)
>That means Zalman now has control of the board, although Aaron's side plans to continue an appeal. <
It's not yet clear how high up he intends to take his case.
NEGOTIATING MADE DIFFICULT
But in the how-organized-religion-enlightens-us department, it gets much, much worse. For a truly terrifying experience, you must listen to this mullah's ‘sermon’, in which he rhapsodizes about the Nazis and proposes his own Final solution. To view this video (which features on-screen translation), click here:
NOW FOR A BETTER WAY OF GETTING ALONG….
Fortunately, some people are trying to find a way to actually get along with each other. One is Steven Hill, a longtime election reform activist, who published a thoughtful op-ed in the Washington Post last weekend on the battle over immigration.
>Immigration issues are always ripe for demagoguery, particularly in an election year. But the solution to the very real problems along the U.S.-Mexican border can be found, ironically, in that other part of the world that American demagogues love to ridicule: old Europe.
Two years ago, the European Union admitted 10 new members. Like Mexico, all of these nations were poor, some of them fairly backward and corrupt, and most recently ravaged by war and communist dictatorship.
To deal with the situation, the leaders of the European Union wisely created policies for fostering regional economic and political integration that make efforts such as the North American Free Trade Agreement "look timid and halfhearted by comparison," according to Bernd Westphal, consul general of Germany.
Europe realized it had to prevent a "giant sucking sound" of businesses and jobs relocating from the 15 wealthier nations to the 10 poorer ones. It also had to foster prosperity and the spread of a middle class in these emerging economies and prevent an influx of poor workers to the richer nations.
So for starters it gave the new states massive subsidies -- billions of dollars' worth -- to help construct schools, roads, telecommunications and housing, thus making these nations more attractive for business investment. The idea was to raise up the emerging economies rather than let the advanced economies be dragged down. It was expensive, but the result has been a larger economic union in which a rising tide floats all boats.
In return the 10 poorer nations had to agree to raise their standards on the environment, labor law, health and safety -- and more…..
Worker migration still is regulated….
This bold yet carefully planned E.U. approach suggests the direction that policy between the United States and Mexico should take. Increasingly the demands of the global economy will push North American regional integration out of the realm of a shadow economy and flawed free trade agreement. But what might such an American-Mexican union look like?
It would start with massive subsidies from the United States to Mexico, a Tex-Mex Marshall Plan, with the goal of decreasing disparities on the Mexican side of the border and fostering a climate riper for investment. This would create more jobs in Mexico and foster a middle class, homeownership and better schools, roads and health care. Fewer Mexicans would then want to emigrate north. Instead, they'd stay home, becoming consumers of U.S. products.
…..And here's an even more intriguing possibility. …..With the cost of living spiraling along the U.S. coasts and in U.S. cities, many Americans would find not only the cheaper prices but also the warm climate and palm trees of Mexico a more attractive alternative than relocating to South Dakota or Kansas.
Call it the Mexican safety valve, with American workers migrating to Mexico in search of jobs, homeownership, even to start businesses. In other words, they would chase the American dream in Mexico.<
Agree or disagree, the concept bears discussion. Personally, Muckraker is already preparing to summer in Fargo and winter in Veracruz.
DESPERATE TIMES
According to USA Today, public transit systems nationwide are suddenly jammed, as gasoholics actually try the bus or the train. Apparently, the increases in gas prices have made drivers so desperate they are actually willing to do the right thing -- even if for the wrong reason. Which, of course, is the American way.
LEAKS
As an investigative reporter, Muckraker knows firsthand how intimidated federal employees have become under the current regime. In the last couple of days, his inquiries about the most banal of matters have prompted government press office officials to try to pry out the reason behind what might otherwise be treated as ordinary requests for information or clarification.
To Muckraker, the CIA clampdown on leaks is less about any legitimate concern about the release of information harming the American public interest than an effort to further intimidate federal employees into not talking at all about what they see happening in this most singular of administrations. If and when increasing numbers do begin singing -- expressing themselves the way retired generals are beginning to do, what a story we will have.
MORE LEAKS
Wanna know why leaks are useful? Consider one shared by the New York Post:
>The FBI and the Justice Department have launched a criminal probe into the origins of the explosive "Pataki Tape" - secretly recorded conversations involving Gov. Pataki, his wife, Libby, former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, and others that The Post revealed last summer.
At least two subpoenas relating to the conversations were issued earlier this month. They seek copies of the conversations - which were consolidated on one tape - and testimony on how they were obtained. A grand jury is believed to be probing possible violations of a federal law making it a felony to secretly tape and dispense phone conversations.
Gov. Pataki demanded an investigation after The Post disclosed the contents of the tape in a series of startling reports. <
Perhaps you’re wondering what the Post tapes contained. Well, the good stuff: blatant patronage discussions with Sopranos-like former Senator Al D'Amato (long considered the strongman behind the bland Gov. Pataki), cussing, and unladylike language from New York State’s First Lady. Since her inconsequential husband is bafflingly exploring a presidential bid, this is all the sort of thing we might like to know about. So here’s a taste, from the Post’s original report last year:
Someone secretly recorded private telephone calls to Gov. Pataki, his wife, Libby, then-Sen. Alfonse D'Amato and others - capturing sensitive personal and political conversations, tapes obtained by The Post reveal.
The existence of the mystery tapes demonstrates there was a major security breach involving the governor and some of his most important associates.
It is illegal in New York to record a conversation between two people if neither one is aware of it.
The extraordinary tapes include lengthy discussions of patronage hiring, obscenity-laced tirades, Mrs. Pataki's extensive complaints about her schedule as first lady, and more mundane matters like preparations for Pataki to attend a funeral.
Caught on the recordings are Pataki and his wife at their upstate Garrison mansion, then-Sen. D'Amato at what appears to be his Washington, D.C., office, longtime Pataki political operative Thomas Doherty, as well as Doherty's mother, and a Westchester County GOP political operative.
*** (here are some excerpts):
CONVERSATION 1
First Lady Libby Pataki complains to Pataki aide Thomas Doherty that she’s overworked and not getting enough publicity - compared with Mayor Giuliani’s then-wife, Donna.
DOHERTY: I see you all over [but] I don’t see your picture in the paper. I don’t see you on TV. I don’t hear you on the radio. So what the hell are you doing out there?
LIBBY PATAKI: Exactly. They have me running around for so much damn stuff.
DOHERTY: Bulls- - - stuff.
LIBBY PATAKI: Exactly. Take your mothers to day work (sic) [apparently referring to the Take Your Daughters to Work Day program]. I spent seven hours running from here to there, and there was not one sentence . . . There were pictures of Donna Giuliani all over the papers. It’s not that I’m not photogenic . . . I said, "George, I’m running around like an idiot. I’d rather be doing major, big events and not be doing all this bulls- - - crap, so that when I do have to go out six nights in a row, let them get something out of it. I’m not getting paid for this crap. I don’t have to do a damn thing if I don’t want to."
-----
CONVERSATION 2
Then-U.S. Sen. Alfonse D’Amato and Doherty discuss patronage problems.
DOHERTY: Just between you and me, if the f- - -ing commissioners of this state were any slower with this s- - -. I mean it got to a point where I called [then-Health Commissioner Barbara] DeBuono on something on behalf of [Nassau County Republican boss Joseph] Mondello, and I said to her, "You know you have a f- - -ing Democrat as your No. 2 person, and you’re telling me that I can’t get my f- - -ing people hired?" And then Brad [then-Pataki chief of staff Brad Race] calls me up and says, "You really can’t call these people like that" . . . I said, "Brad, does Barbara DeBuono work for us or do we work for her?" I said, "Joe Mondello can’t get a goddam job, and it still hasn’t been done yet." It’s utter bulls- - -.
----
CONVERSATION 3
STATE TROOPER: Governor’s residence.
DOHERTY: Governor, sorry to bother you.
PATAKI: No problem.
DOHERTY: The family of the father came up to me at the wake this afternoon. They asked if you would say a few words. I said you had never done that before [garbled] . . . if you could do that.
PATAKI: Done.
DOHERTY: I’ll draft those [garbled] for you.
PATAKI: Think of something.
----
CONVERSATION 4
Doherty describes a patronage problem at the state Department of Motor Vehicles with a person identified as "Tim."
DOHERTY: I called Motor Vehicles and said, "Look, I just want this done." The guy told me that next Tuesday, he would take care of it. $60,000 a year, no ifs, ands or buts. That’s the bottom line . . .
DOHERTY [describing a conversation he had with a second DMV official, Joseph Seymour]: So the guy on the other end of the phone, the No. 2 over there, says, "Well, you know, this is a heavy lift." I said, "Oh, yeah? Well, just make sure it gets f- - -ing done!" I said, "I’ll call you next Tuesday" . . . I mean these people are ridiculous. I told him Sen. D’Amato, the governor, knows about this. The governor wants to make sure this happens.
----
CONVERSATION 5
Doherty later discusses the DMV problem with D’Amato.
DOHERTY: You want to hear this one?
D’AMATO: Yeah.
DOHERTY: He’s a guy from Peekskill. He’s the No. 2 guy at DMV. I go through the whole thing. Why this man is wanted, you know. A big lift?
D’AMATO: Did you ask him how the hell he got his job?
DOHERTY: I laughed at that point. I got off the phone, and everybody in the office said, "What did he say?" I said, "It’s a big lift." They go, "How did we get here?" . . . I said, "Thank you."
D’AMATO: Stupid ass.
DOHERTY: Stupid bastard is what he is. <
Indeed.
HELPING HILLARY? OR PETCO?
The New York Post ran this strange little item about Hillary, who it used to hate until she and Post owner Rupert Murdoch started making very nice with each other:
>Where does Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton go when she's looking for new campaign hires?
The same place Petco turns to for new dog groomers: Monster.com.
Clinton ventured into cyberspace to hire a new director of technology and a staff assistant at her Friends of Hillary re-election team. <
Either this item is supposed to help Hillary by helping tamp down her reputation for imperiousness by noting her grassroots hiring practices, or someone at the Post is helping out Monster.com. Or PetCo. Or both. Or none of the above.
BLEAP THAT!
The other day, the New York Times ran a story about a Dutch marketing campaign in which sheep are wrapped in “branded blankets” to promote a product. It’s quite eye-catching out there in the sylvan fields, and, fortunately, keeps motorists’ minds from wandering away from commerce for even a moment.
Here’s Slate’s neat summary:
>The NYT reports on Europe's latest "low-technology billboards," which take the form of "walking, woolly flocks of bleating sheep." Startled Dutch motorists are making "ewe-turns," quips the Times, to peek at herds swaddled in "branded blankets" advertising a hotel booking site. The sheep presumably don't mind: The blankets repel both rain and insects. But one town objects to the ovine bling for fear of a slippery slope. "We have to stop this," said the town's mayor, who's fining the company 1000 euros per day. "If we start with sheep, then next it's the cows and horses."<
It all seems kind of funny, but it isn’t. As Muckraker has grumbled before on occasion, the creep of branding and commercialism is everywhere – robbing us of vistas and mental space for true creativity and free thinking. Younger people than he are so used to the phenomenon, they don’t even question it at all. For more on this issue, go to www.commercialalert.org and www.onthecommons.org – and tell them we sent ya.
DICKENSIAN NAMES
The New York Times has an article in which a judge, Hubert Legal of France, stands up for society’s interests over business’s. Commenting on Mr. Legal was a legal consultant, Christopher Bright. Mr Legal undoubtedly knows the law, and Mr. Bright is undoubtedly sharp as hell, bringing to mind a physician my grandfather used to see, Dr. Hurt.
Then, of course, there is, or was, Tom DeLay. And Donald Trump. Life sometimes seems so Dickensian (the great writer had characters like Sweedlepipe and Honeythunder) or at least pun-worthy. But not always: Baker Muckraker is not one to loaf – nor is he rolling in the dough. On the nice buns, front, however…..
THE ROVE REPORT (from our Rove-ing Reporter)
Why does everything in the news suddenly look political? Oh – because it’s an election year. That's why.
First off, we have this from the New York Times:
>The apprehension on Wednesday of more than 1,100 illegal immigrants employed by a pallet supply company based in Houston, as well as the arrest of seven of its managers, represented the start of a more aggressive federal crackdown on employers, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday.
Describing the hiring of millions of illegal workers, in some cases, as a form of organized crime, Mr. Chertoff said the government would try to combat the practice with techniques similar to those used to shut down the mob.
"We target those organizations, we use intelligence to define the scope of the organization, and then we use all of the tools we have — whether it's criminal enforcement or the immigration laws — to make sure we come down as hard as possible and break the back of those organizations," Mr. Chertoff said at a news conference. <
First off, it seems a little conceited (and inaccurate) for Chertoff to claim that "intelligence" plays any role in this process. And as long as they're rounding up these deadly foreign agents, what of the safety of chemical plants, long identified as easy targets for terrorists? Where is that in the department’s list of priorities?
>The arrests took place just days before the Senate reconvenes with immigration laws on its agenda. Earlier this month, the Senate faltered in its efforts to develop a proposal that would have given most illegal immigrants a chance to become citizens while intensifying border patrol and deportation efforts. And in recent weeks, hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their supporters have demonstrated in response to a bill passed in the House in December that would speed deportations, tighten border security and criminalize illegal immigrants.<
Clearly, the political base has been demanding action. Looks like this is a Karl Rove policy initiative – set-up before he agreed the other day to stop meddling in policy. Not that he will stop, of course. Rove and policy is like a pyromaniac and matches. It's just too tempting.
>In the action on Wednesday, federal officials detained 1,187 illegal immigrants working in 26 states for IFCO Systems North America, a subsidiary of a company based in the Netherlands that supplies plastic containers and wood pallets used to ship a variety of goods, from fruit to computers. <
A Dutch company. Are we to assume that none of the American corporations owned or run by big Bush backers don’t have any illegal workers? Muckraker ran a quick check of IFCO’s executives, and NONE show up as donating to the GOP, or to Bush’s campaigns. Despite the fact that the company’s US headquarters is in Houston, the Bush family backyard. This has to be just about the only Houston company not coughing up for Bush.
>Of the 1,187 detained workers, 275 have already been deported to Mexico. The rest are being processed for deportation, although many may be released on bond….
An examination of the company's payroll of 5,800 employees found that just over half of them had Social Security numbers that were either invalid, belonged to a dead person or did not match names on file, the department said.
The investigation started in February 2005, when agents received a tip that IFCO Systems workers in Guilderland, N.Y., were seen ripping up federal tax-related employment verification forms, and then an assistant manager present explained that they were illegal immigrants who did not intend to file tax returns.<
Hmm. Guilderland, NY? Guess what the Dutch currency was before the Euro. The guilder. That’s a sort of odd coincidence. Unless IFCO has been there since the days of Peter Minuit. Admittedly, Muckraker is becoming increasingly paranoid, but can you blame him?
>No senior executives at the company were arrested, but officials filed criminal charges against seven current or former lower-level managers and a foreman. The supervisors, from New York, Massachusetts, Ohio and Texas, were accused of conspiring to transport, harbor and induce illegal immigrants to come to the United States, charges that carry maximum sentences of up to 10 years in jail.<
Of course, it’s highly unlikely that “senior executives” would have had no idea who was working for them. We’ll have to see whether they end up being held accountable. Unlikely. After all, as high-income individuals benefiting from tax cuts for the rich, they're still potential GOP voters.
>………As part of the campaign against illegal hiring, Mr. Chertoff and Julie L. Myers, assistant secretary at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, plan to hire 171 more work-site enforcement agents. ….<
Chertoff and Myers assured reporters that all of those agents have proper papers. [NOT]
Separately, the department is adding 17 special teams of investigators, for a total of 52, to search for some of the 590,000 immigrants in the country who have ignored orders to leave. The department is also working with state and local officials to try to identify and, if possible, deport many of an estimated 630,000 foreign-born individuals who are arrested on criminal charges and put into jail.
Nationally, there were 127 criminal convictions last year — up from 46 the year before — against employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants, the department said.<
With a few thousand percent increase in convictions, we should have the problem well in hand.
NOT FREE BASING, BUT A FREE BASE
As reported by the New York Times (among others, of course – Muckraker does not wish to confer excessive credit upon the paper except where it has actual exclusives, but then he lives in New York and so that’s what he is usually reading most carefully):
>The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday that "no sound scientific studies" supported the medical use of marijuana, contradicting a 1999 review by a panel of highly regarded scientists.
The announcement inserts the health agency into yet another fierce political fight.
Susan Bro, an agency spokeswoman, said Thursday's statement resulted from a past combined review by federal drug enforcement, regulatory and research agencies that concluded "smoked marijuana has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States and is not an approved medical treatment."
Ms. Bro said the agency issued the statement in response to numerous inquiries from Capitol Hill but would probably do nothing to enforce it.<
Could it be? Another sop to the political base? What Muckraker wouldn’t give to get a hold of Karl Rove’s shopping list.
>....Eleven states have legalized medicinal use of marijuana, but the Drug Enforcement Administration and the director of national drug control policy, John P. Walters, have opposed those laws.
A Supreme Court decision last year allowed the federal government to arrest anyone using marijuana, even for medical purposes and even in states that have legalized its use.
Congressional opponents and supporters of medical marijuana use have each tried to enlist the F.D.A. to support their views. Representative Mark Souder, Republican of Indiana and a fierce opponent of medical marijuana initiatives, proposed legislation two years ago that would have required the food and drug agency to issue an opinion on the medicinal properties of marijuana.<
There’s a panic in Indiana, folks! Get them out to the polls!
>Mr. Souder believes that efforts to legalize medicinal uses of marijuana are a front for efforts to legalize all uses of it, said Martin Green, a spokesman for Mr. Souder.
….The Food and Drug Administration statement directly contradicts a 1999 review by the Institute of Medicine, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific advisory agency. That review found marijuana to be "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting."
Dr. John Benson, co-chairman of the Institute of Medicine committee that examined the research into marijuana's effects, said in an interview that the statement on Thursday and the combined review by other agencies were wrong.
The federal government "loves to ignore our report," said Dr. Benson, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. "They would rather it never happened."…..<
Lots of things these days that people are wishing had never happened. But...
HU WANTS TO KNOW?
As the Washington Post noted in an editorial before the Chinese leader and Bush met:
>Contrary to the standard protocol for visiting heads of state, there will be no news conference at which American and Chinese journalists can ask unscripted questions. ... The White House's acquiescence to a Chinese demand that Mr. Hu not be subjected to possibly embarrassing queries about political prisoners, religious freedom or censorship of the Internet symbolizes a major element of Mr. Bush's policy—his willingness to relegate China's worsening performance on political freedom and human rights to a back burner. ...<
Sounds like a Bush event, all right. No unscripted questions. Or maybe a Wal-Mart employee pep rally.
>Never mind that according to Mr. Bush's doctrine, respect for human rights is directly connected to the ability of states to be strategic partners of the United States. "Governments that brutalize their people," says the president's new national security strategy, "also threaten the peace and stability of other nations." News conference question for Mr. Bush: Does that logic not apply to China?<
No. Nor to the United States. But thanks for asking.
THE TOTE BOARD
Based on this Washington Post report, those holding defense (a somewhat misnomer) stocks should break out the champagne. It’s going to be a banner year! If you’re one of them, why not donate a portion of the proceeds to the Real News Project? We hear it’s a worthy cause.
>With the expected passage this spring of the largest emergency spending bill in history, annual war expenditures in Iraq will have nearly doubled since the U.S. invasion, as the military confronts the rapidly escalating cost of repairing, rebuilding and replacing equipment chewed up by three years of combat.
The cost of the war in U.S. fatalities has declined this year, but the cost in treasure continues to rise, from $48 billion in 2003 to $59 billion in 2004 to $81 billion in 2005 to an anticipated $94 billion in 2006....
Annual war costs in Iraq are easily outpacing the $61 billion a year that the United States spent in Vietnam between 1964 and 1972, in today's dollars. <
In today's dollars. More than Vietnam. More than against hundreds of thousands of hardy opponents moving in mountain and jungle, backed by the world communist machine. More. And that's with the US running the place.
>The invasion's "shock and awe" of high-tech laser-guided bombs, cruise missiles and stealth aircraft has long faded, but the costs of even those early months are just coming into view as the military confronts equipment repair and rebuilding costs it has avoided and procurement costs it never expected…..
Steven M. Kosiak, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments' director of budget studies, said, "If you look at the earlier estimates of anticipated costs, this war is a lot more expensive than it should be, based on past conflicts." <
No, no. It should be more expensive. After all, gotta keep the American economy primed. Must keep all those defense companies at record profit levels. Must generate all those donations. It’s an election year, for crying out loud.
<….The helicopters, tanks, personnel carriers and even small arms "have required more maintenance than we planned for," said Gary Motsek, director of support operations at the Army Materiel Command. "We're working them to death."<
An unfortunate choice of words, Mr Motsek.
>In the first years of the war, Army and Marine units rotating out of Iraq left behind usable equipment for the next units rolling in. But even the working equipment is now being shipped back to the Army's five depots to be refurbished and upgraded.<
According to Mr. Motsek, this is being handled by a division of Halliburton, Cheney Retirement Equities. [NOT]
……And that is only the work being done in the United States. In and around Iraq, 53,000 people -- 52,000 of them contractors -- are maintaining and rebuilding lightly damaged equipment, a senior Senate defense aide said. Indian workers are refurbishing U.S. Humvees for $6 an hour.<
Reporters with questions can call for more information. Indian telecomm workers earning $1 an hour will refer inquiries about who profits off this subcontracting to high-paid DC p.r. firms run by former congressmen and senators. Oh, the joy of it all!
>"The equipment is wearing out five times faster than normal operations," said Jeremiah Gertler, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former House Armed Services Committee procurement aide.<
And what exactly are ‘normal operations?’ And how does one get to be a ‘senior fellow?’ Muckraker is a fellow, and he’s at least more senior than some. Of course, he hasn’t been a House ‘procurement aide’ – and admittedly, who could be better to provide objective analysis than a former procurement aide now working for a think tank with ties to the corporate world?
>What cannot be repaired has to be replaced. Procurement costs were a tiny fraction of the initial emergency war requests, Kosiak said. This year, new equipment purchases will consume 20 percent of the war funding. That has led to what some critics see as wasteful expenditures. The Senate bill includes $230 million to replace an unspecified number of CH-46E Sea Knight helicopters lost in battle with three V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. In other words, senators plan to replace a Marine Corps workhorse with an experimental aircraft that critics say will never be useful in combat. <
Now really, nobody appreciates spoilsports like those “some critics.” Anyway, according to the Associated Press, “The Osprey, manufactured by Bell Helicopter, a subsidiary of Textron Inc., has been in development since the 1980s and has cost the government $18 billion so far. It has suffered numerous setbacks over the years, including two crashes in 2000 that killed 23 people.” According to Muckraker, Textron execs have already coughed up at least $30,000 to GOP causes in this election cycle, and untold more hidden amounts that Muckraker is too lazy to research. But then, so is the mainstream media. And they get paid to do this stuff.
>…..such costs will continue, even after U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq. To fully re-equip and upgrade the U.S. Army after the war ends would cost $36 billion over six years, and that figure assumes U.S. forces would begin withdrawing in July and would be completely out of Iraq by the end of 2008, an assumption Bush dismissed when he suggested withdrawal will be up to his White House successor.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said a more protracted fight could triple [that] $36 billion figure.<
So here’s an idea: How about each news organization assigns one person, fulltime, to tracking contracts and related influence-peddling? And how about a daily tote board keeping track of who’s doing how well from this war?
There’s gold in them thar hills, ladies and jellybeans. Git ya some.
HERE’S A TIP
A READER of the Progressive Review inexplicably writes:
>I try to tip at 20% but sometimes I make it around 15.
Rarely will I do better than 20. I mean, I know servers live on tips, but the freakin' food is getting really expensive, and forget about mixed drinks or beers.<
Yeah. It’s tough out there. Have a drink of your choice this weekend, on Muckraker.
NOT THAT KIND OF MOVEMENT
From BUZZFLASH:
>Perhaps the saddest, most mournful -- but drollest -- headline we saw yesterday was this one: "Rumsfeld Says of Latest Flap, 'This Too Will Pass.'"
Message to Mr. Master of the Universe: We are not talking about a bowel movement here. We are talking about thousands upon thousands of lives lost, thousands more wounded, billions of dollars of our money spent wastefully, and a military that thinks you don't know what the Hell you are doing -- along with the blessed ignorance of Bush and Cheney.
No, Donald, this too will NOT pass. It's called incompetence, arrogance and abysmal, utter failure.
Our second favorite headline of recent days was, "Pentagon Fights Back." Excuse us, but who is the enemy? Us?
And any current members of the military brass HAVE to speak out in support of the civilian chain of command, otherwise they will be dismissed from command or demoted. But why is Rumsfeld fighting back against Iraq combat-experienced generals? Shouldn't he be fighting whoever the enemy is in Iraq, which is just about everyone there now except the Chalabi clan.
Our third favorite headline of recent days was winner of the understatement of the decade award: "Rumsfeld May be Permanently Tainted by Iraq War." The people who have been killed in Rumsfeld's folly don't have the luxury of being tainted; they are too dead for that. We think instead of Rumsfeld being "permanently tainted," he should be tried, convicted, and sentenced for war crimes and crimes against the nation.
Maybe we could have a split-screen trial with Saddam's courtroom drama on one side and Rummy's on the other, since Saddam and Rummy used to be such good buddies when Rummy was helping to arm Saddam to fight Iran.
Oh, it all gets just SO confusing. We mean who are our friends and who are our enemies? You need a score card to keep it straight.
But, as for Rummy, he should reserve his "fighting back" statements and press conference bowel movements for the front lines, where he should spend a few months of rotation with our men and women doing the dying. And he should take Bush and Cheney with him, since they've never fought in a war either.
Then the issue is not one of being "tainted"; it's one of just staying alive. <
SECRETS R US
Are you confused? In general? If not, read this from the New York Times and see if you can’t get yourself confused in particular.
>State secrets are involved in a lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency brought by the wife of a former covert operative, lawyers for the agency said yesterday in a New York federal court, arguing that national security will be at risk if the case is allowed to proceed.
At a hearing in Federal District Court in Manhattan, the lawyers asked Judge Laura Taylor Swain to dismiss the case, saying that all of the vital information in the suit was highly classified and could not be disclosed to the woman or her lawyers.
The agency has already combed the documents presented to date in the suit, which was filed last September. Among the information the C.I.A. classified and blacked out were the names of the woman bringing the suit and of her husband, most of the events in dispute, and the name of a second government agency that the woman is suing.
In a declaration presented in court, the director of the C.I.A., Porter J. Goss, said he had determined that classified information about the woman and her husband was "so integral" to the suit that any further court action would require secrets to be disclosed. Publishing any details of the case would cause "serious damage" to national security, Mr. Goss said.<
Investigative journalist Alert: Always pay extra attention to such assertions. Nobody has ever gotten a good, publicly-usable definition of “national security.” What is it? When is the security of the nation, that is, of We, the People, actually threatened? Would this lawsuit somehow enable terrorists to strike the US? Would it give away crucial defense secrets, or espionage techniques so clever that no one could figure them out on their own? Would codes and ongoing operations of great import be compromised? Historically, we’ve seen that many claimed “national security concerns” might well have been dubbed “social security” matters – since they were more likely to threaten the careers of agency officials than actually to threaten the broader public interest. In fact, in many of these cases, one can argue that the “national security interest” is best served by letting us know more about how these agencies operate so that we can demand improvements.
>Invoking an unusual state secrets privilege, lawyers for the agency asked Judge Swain to dismiss the case immediately.
The lawyer for the woman who is suing, Mark S. Zaid, said that he had the necessary clearances to see classified information, but that he could not communicate with the woman, who was overseas in a country whose name was blacked out in the court papers. Mr. Zaid charged that the C.I.A. was blocking him from having a legal conversation with the woman.
The original suit Mr. Zaid filed, now extensively edited with the agency's blackouts, said the woman's husband was in the securities business, with a New York Stock Exchange license, when he became an undercover agent for the C.I.A. The agency sent him to several foreign countries, then brought him back to the United States in 1999. Sometime later he was "summarily separated" from the C.I.A.
Both the woman and her husband became ill and depressed as a result of his firing, the suit states. The man's depression was compounded, the suit says, after he was in "close physical proximity" to the Sept. 11 attacks in New York. The C.I.A. refused to provide medical or psychological care for the couple, so they moved to a foreign country in search of treatment.
For reasons that are classified, the woman and the couple's three children have not been able to return to the United States. She remains "a virtual prisoner" in her home there, the suit says, "constantly fearful of eventual detection," with her mental health deteriorating.
Mr. Zaid said he was barred by secrecy regulations from talking to the woman on a regular, nonsecure telephone line. He could not meet with her in the foreign country because he would break the rules by bringing classified information back into the United States, he said.
"What they are trying to do is strangle my ability to represent these clients," Mr. Zaid told Judge Swain. He asked the judge to order the agency to provide secure channels for him to talk with the woman and her husband.<
ARCHIVES AND ARCHENEMIES
Moving on to the next level of paranoia, we have the C.I.A. Trying to reclassify documents, some going back to the 1950s, on account of that shibboleth, “national security.” Here’s an account from the Times:
>The National Archives signed a secret agreement in 2001 with the Central Intelligence Agency permitting the spy agency to withdraw from public access records it considered to have been improperly declassified, the head of the archives, Allen Weinstein, disclosed on Monday.
Mr. Weinstein, who began work as archivist of the United States last year, said he learned of the agreement with the C.I.A. on Thursday and was putting a stop to such secret reclassification arrangements, which he described as incompatible with the mission of the archives.
Like a similar 2002 agreement with the Air Force that was made public last week, the C.I.A. arrangement required that archives employees not reveal to researchers why documents they requested were being withheld.
The disclosure of the secret agreements provides at least a partial explanation for the removal since 1999 of more than 55,000 pages of historical documents from access to researchers at the archives. The removal of documents, including many dating to the 1950's, was discovered by a group of historians this year and reported by The New York Times in February.
The reclassification program has drawn protests from many historians and several members of Congress, notably Representative Christopher Shays, the Connecticut Republican who held a hearing on the program last month....
In a brief interview, Mr. Weinstein said he was particularly disturbed that the archives had agreed not to tell researchers why documents were unavailable. The C.I.A. agreement said archives employees would "not attribute to C.I.A. any part of the review or the withholding of documents." In the agreement with the Air Force, archives officials said they would "not disclose the true reason for the presence" of Air Force personnel at the archives.<
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along.
>Mr. Weinstein said he would not permit such agreements in the future. If the withdrawal of previously declassified documents becomes necessary, he said, it will be conducted "with transparency," including disclosure of the number of documents removed.
Asked about Mr. Weinstein's statement, Paul Gimigliano, a C.I.A. spokesman, said, "Working very closely over the years with the National Archives, C.I.A.'s goal has been to ensure the greatest possible public access to material that has been properly declassified."<
"You should see what qualifies as 'properly declassified," hooted Mr. Gmigliano. "We don't even let people know about Richard Helms's pedicure appointments."
>Thomas S. Blanton, director of the private National Security Archive at George Washington University, praised Mr. Weinstein's actions.
"He's doing the right thing, no more secret agreements to classify open files," said Mr. Blanton, whose group helped uncover the reclassification program. "The National Archives aided and abetted a covert operation to lie to researchers and white-out history."
Matthew M. Aid, a Washington historian who discovered in December that documents he obtained years ago had been removed from open shelves, said he was "saddened" by the revelation that archives officials had agreed to hide the reclassification program. "I still don't understand why this all had to be done in secret," Mr. Aid said.<
Or, he might well have added, why it has to be done at all.
THROWING THE BOOK AT THE SECRET-COLLECTORS
And here’s a little related item I didn’t get around to blogging about last time, and it’s certainly more of the same. Again, from the Times:
>After fighting ferociously for months, federal prosecutors relented yesterday and agreed to allow a Connecticut library group to identify itself as the recipient of a secret F.B.I. demand for records in a counterterrorism investigation.
The decision ended a dispute over whether the broad provisions for secrecy in the USA Patriot Act, the antiterror law, trumped the free speech rights of library officials. The librarians had gone to federal court to gain permission to identify themselves as the recipients of the secret subpoena, known as a national security letter, ordering them to turn over patron records and e-mail messages.<
Got it? This isn't about whether the government should be able to snoop on Americans' book-borrowing practices. It isn't about whether a library should be able to reveal that it was asked to snoop. It is about whether a library that was asked to snoop can even identify itself.
>...Lawyers for the group, the Library Connection of Windsor, Conn., argued that their client was eager to participate freely in the debate last year over the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. But federal prosecutors asserted that the Patriot Act required that the group's identity remain secret and that the government would suffer irreparable harm if any information about its investigations became known.....
The government was also under pressure to drop its fight after mistakenly disclosing in court records the very information it was fighting to keep secret.
Whoops! And therefore "national security" was harmed exactly how?
>Government lawyers failed to redact all of their references to the Library Connection in court filings, leading to the disclosure of the group's identity in The New York Times and other newspapers.<
And on Muckraker -- don't forget about that!
HILLARY WATCH
Even older and moldier is this Times piece from a week ago. Still important to read and discuss.
>Corning Inc., one of upstate New York's largest and oldest employers, has supported Republican candidates for so long that its chairman once joked that it had not raised money for a Democrat since 1812.
But since Hillary Rodham Clinton was elected to the Senate in 2000, Corning and its mainly Republican executives have become one of her largest sources of campaign contributions. And in that time, Mrs. Clinton has become one of the company's leading champions, delivering for it like no other Democratic lawmaker.
In April 2003, a month after Corning's political action committee gave $10,000 to her re-election campaign, Mrs. Clinton announced legislation that would provide hundreds of millions in federal aid to reduce diesel pollution, using, among other things, technology pioneered by Corning. It was one of several Congressional initiatives Mrs. Clinton has pushed that benefit the company.<
Of course, if the reduction in diesel pollution was so necessary, and it surely was, the polluters could have paid for the Corning equipment, rather than you and me. You see, indirectly, then, we are funding Hillary's political ambitions, whether we wish to or not.
>And in April 2004, Mrs. Clinton began a push to persuade the Chinese government to relax tariffs on Corning fiber optics products, inviting the Chinese ambassador to her office and personally asking President Bush for help in the matter. One month after the beginning of that ultimately successful effort, Corning's chairman, James Houghton, held a fund-raiser at his home that collected tens of thousands of dollars for her re-election campaign. ....
...The company and its employees contributed $137,000 from the time she was elected in 2000 through the end of 2005. Although it was a small portion of the $33 million the senator raised for her re-election during that time, it was the most from any single source other than MetLife — more even than politically active Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs. In addition, Corning twice paid for her to travel upstate to be briefed on issues important to the company and the region.
.....The Clinton-Corning alliance is so new and unexpected that John W. Loose, who retired as Corning's chief executive in 2002, after 38 years, reacted in disbelief when told of the company's contributions to her campaign after he left.
"No kidding?" said Mr. Loose, who raised money for Mrs. Clinton's Republican opponent, Rick Lazio, in 2000. "I'm really surprised to hear that. Very surprised. A lot of the executives there were Republicans. There were only a handful of Democrats."<
Well, Mr. Loose, nothing is all that surprising anymore. Including the increasing difficulty separating elected Democrats from Republicans.
HILLARY, ALBERTO, RUPERT AND JARED
Speaking of Hillary and shenanigans, consider this complicated scenario from another Times piece, about the alleged extortion plot involving the New York Post’s gossip column, which we have referenced in prior blog entries:
>Federal authorities investigating Jared Paul Stern, the New York Post Page Six contributor, would have to overcome several hurdles before arresting him, including getting approval from the United States attorney general, legal experts and people who have been briefed on the case said yesterday.
But the requirement that the attorney general approve any arrest, and several other unusual issues facing the authorities because Mr. Stern was a member of the news media, do not mean that charges against him are unlikely, said the people briefed on the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing……
In a strange twist to the already strange case, The Post would be considered the victim under that statute, which makes it a crime for Mr. Stern to seek money from Mr. Burkle in exchange for the promise of keeping gossip items about him out of Page Six, depriving the newspaper of his honest services.<
We presume that term is being used lightly.
>If prosecutors do decide to seek charges against Mr. Stern, they must write a memo to the attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, seeking his approval, a requirement under the Justice Department's internal guidelines for United States attorneys. The section of the guidelines dealing with subpoenaing members of the news media, as well as interrogating and arresting them, would also require Mr. Gonzales's approval to question Mr. Stern or subpoena any of his colleagues, and this has also slowed the investigation, the people briefed on the case have said…..<
May we (Muckraker) introduce another strange twist? The Post is a very good friend of the Bush Administration, and in reality the paper has to hope that the scandal simply goes away (unlike those many scandals it stokes relentlessly, where others are involved.) But the Post is also, bizarrely, now a good friend of Hillary Clinton, who went to bat for Murdoch on a few things, and is now suddenly treated with love and affection after years of contumely from the tabloid. It’s all one happy bed these days.
HEY, HEY, MY, MY
Now, why isn’t this a headline? Okay, it’s not really a headline, but it sort of represents an important moment, kinda. From the Times:
>Neil Young, who has periodically touched on political themes during a four-decade career, plans to release a hastily recorded new album ruminating on the war in Iraq and directly calling for the impeachment of President Bush.
The 10-song album, "Living With War," will probably represent Mr. Young's most overtly partisan work since the song "Ohio," recorded and quickly released by the group Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young as a response to the Kent State shootings in 1970.
Elliot Roberts, Mr. Young's longtime manager, said the album would be "more about soldiers" and "what it's like to all of a sudden be 18 and on the line."
The titles on the album include "Let's Impeach the President," which features Mr. Bush's voice overlaid above a 100-voice choir singing, "Flip flop." Another title is "Lookin' for a Leader." The album also includes an a cappella version of "America the Beautiful," sung by Mr. Young with the choir.
Mr. Roberts said that he did not know exactly what had inspired Mr. Young to record the new songs, which were written and recorded in a span of roughly two weeks, but that "I know he watches the news." He added that he believed the album's sentiments would resonate broadly, adding that "it's not a political, Democratic versus Republican feel."
The album comes at a time when major record companies and radio stations appear to have developed a degree of comfort with bluntly political material. <
Would have been nice to get some context on all the censorship afoot, including the artists such as the Dixie Chicks who faced tremendous pressure for criticizing Bush during the 2004 campaign.
>The latest song from the band Pearl Jam, "World Wide Suicide," which accuses the president of taking soldiers' sacrifices for granted, recently logged three weeks at No. 1 on the Billboard modern-rock airplay chart. And Green Day's 2004 album "American Idiot" which addresses themes of alienation but also includes lyrics like "Sieg Heil to the president gasman," has emerged as a blockbuster, selling more than 5.4 million copies so far, according to Nielsen SoundScan data.
Mr. Young has expressed varying views on politics over the years. In the 1980's he openly supported Ronald Reagan, but he has since become a fairly consistent critic of Republican administrations.
His 1989 song "Rockin' in the Free World" implicitly criticized the first President Bush. In "Greendale," a film he directed to accompany his 2003 album of the same name, Mr. Young sings lyrics nodding to the Patriot Act — "We'll be watching you/ No matter what you do" — against images of former Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Mr. Roberts said that he had not yet played the new music for executives at Mr. Young's record label, the Warner Brothers/Reprise unit of Warner Music Group, but that he expected the album to be released as soon as June. Mr. Young's last album, "Prairie Wind," has sold about 452,000 copies, according to Nielsen SoundScan.
On his Web site (neilyoung.com), Mr. Young describes the recording as "a metal version of Phil Ochs and Bob Dylan. ... Metal folk protest?"
The site also displays a scrolling sample of lyrics from the album:
And when the dawn breaks I see my fellow man
And on the flat-screen we kill and we're killed again
And when the night falls, I pray for peace
Try to remember peace.<
REVERENTIAL
Speaking of peace, equally vigilant Muckraker-reader and obituary-scrutinizer David Margolick points out that Honorary Muckraker Marie Runyon, just turned 91 and as ready to fight