From
 THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
 NOV 20 2005

“According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball’s information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball’s accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said… The White House, for example, ignored evidence gathered by United Nations weapons inspectors shortly before the war that disproved Curveball’s account. Bush and his aides issued increasingly dire warnings about Iraq’s biological weapons before the war even though intelligence from Curveball had not changed in two years.

At the Central Intelligence Agency, officials embraced Curveball’s account even though they could not confirm it or interview him until a year after the invasion. They ignored multiple warnings about his reliability before the war, punished in-house critics who provided proof that he had lied and refused to admit error until May 2004, 14 months after the invasion.”

Bloomberg for President? — New York Magazine:

‘Let’s take that 60 percent approval rating out for a spin, see what it gets us.’

His American Dream

The Bloomberg-for-president scenario starts with the mayor’s growing sense of himself as a man of destiny. Throw in the country’s disgust with the two parties, add a half-a-billion bucks, and you’ve got yourself a race.

The Woodward Scandal Should Not Blow Over:

by Norman Solomon

Bob Woodward probably hoped that the long holiday weekend would break the momentum of an uproar that suddenly confronted him midway through November. But three days after Thanksgiving, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” a question about the famed Washington Post reporter provoked anything but the customary adulation.

“I think none of us can really understand Bob’s silence for two years about his own role in the case,” longtime Post journalist David Broder told viewers. “He’s explained it by saying he did not want to become involved and did not want to face a subpoena, but he left his editor, our editor, blind-sided for two years and he went out and talked disparagingly about the significance of the investigation without disclosing his role in it. Those are hard things to reconcile.”

An icon of the media establishment, Broder is accustomed to making excuses for deceptive machinations by the White House and other centers of power in Washington. His televised rebuke of Woodward on Nov. 27 does not augur well for current efforts to salvage Woodward’s reputation as a trustworthy journalist.

The Woodward saga is a story of a reporter who, as half of the Post duo that broke open Watergate, challenged powerful insiders — and then, as years went by, became one of them. He used confidential sources to expose wrongdoing at the top levels of the U.S. government — and then, gradually, became cozy with high-placed sources who effectively used him.

Now, Woodward is scrambling to explain why, for more than two years, he didn’t disclose that a government official told him the wife of Bush war-policy critic Joe Wilson was undercover CIA employee Valerie Plame. Even after the Plame leaks turned into a big scandal rocking the Bush administration, Woodward failed to tell any Post editor about his own involvement — though he may have been the first journalist to receive one of those leaks. And, in media appearances, he disparaged the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald without so much as hinting at his own stake in disparaging it.

Interviewed several months ago on NPR’s “Fresh Air” program, Woodward portrayed the investigation as little more than a tempest in a teapot. “The issues don’t really involve national security or people’s lives or jeopardy,” he commented, adding that “I think in the end, we will find there’s not really corruption here.”

Woodward also told the national radio audience: “The woman who was the CIA undercover operative was working in CIA headquarters. There was no national security threat, there was no jeopardy to her life, there was no nothing. When I think all of the facts come out in this case, it’s going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great.”

But there was never anything laughable about Fitzgerald’s investigation into the Plame scandal. And Woodward had learned to take it a lot more seriously by the time he appeared as the only guest on CNN’s hour-long “Larry King Live” the night of Nov. 21.

After days of bad publicity, Woodward was in a spinning mood. He seemed eager to run out the clock as he filled time with digressions and minor details. When in a corner, he often brought up Watergate, as though his days of indisputable glory could draw light away from his recent indefensible behavior.

Larry King is rarely a vigorous interviewer; his customary mode of questioning is much closer to Oprah than “60 Minutes.” But King, who has featured Woodward on his show many times over the years, seemed agitated during the latest interview. And that’s understandable. After all, Woodward had previously gone on the show and dismissed the importance of the Plamegate scandal while withholding relevant firsthand information.

Woodward has written best-selling books heavily reliant on interviews granted by top administration officials. During the Nov. 21 interview, the unusually engaged King zeroed in on a dynamic that often pollutes the work of big-name journalists in Washington: They get and retain access to the powerful because they don’t go out of bounds.

Noting that Woodward was able to avail himself of lengthy interviews with President Bush for a recent book, King said: “He’s given you three hours. He’ll help you with the next book. Doesn’t that give him an edge with you?” And, King pointed out, the benefits of such arrangements run in both directions, for author and president alike: “He’s not going to come out looking terrible because you want him for your next book and you’d like to have that in.”

Bob Woodward wasn’t grilled by Larry King. But the questions were vigorous enough to make America’s most renowned reporter seem evasive and self-absorbed.

During the long interview, Woodward gave various explanations for his careful silence that misled Post editors and the public. He did not want to get dragged into the Plame-leak investigation with a subpoena, and anyway he was preoccupied with gathering information that would be revealed later in a book.

Overall, Bob Woodward’s priorities seemed to center on Bob Woodward. Yet near the end of the interview, he offered this platitude with a straight face and without a hint of self-reproach: “I think the biggest mistake you can make in this sort of situation as a reporter is to worry about yourself.”

Norman Solomon is the author of “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” For information and excerpts from the book, go to: http://www.WarMadeEasy.com.

Mia Culpa: Keep it Secret, Keep it Safe:

Arriving in tuxedos and gowns to honor departing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld last night, members of the Union League of Philadelphia were greeted by Celeste Zappala holding a sign: “Rumsfeld Betrayed My Son. Betrayed My Country. Gets A Medal… For What!”

Standing among dozens of protesters outside the Union League building on Broad and Sansom streets, the grieving West Mount Airy mom wore a poster with a large photo of her late son and the words: “We Mourn Sgt. Sherwood Baker. Killed in Baghdad. April 26, 2004.”

“Rumsfeld is the symbol of the failed policy that has killed 2,888 American soldiers and wounded over 20,000,” Zappala said, “and they’re giving him a medal for that? This is appalling.

“If they want to give out a gold medal, give it to our soldiers who somehow made it home alive.”

When the league gave Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor its Gold Medal in 2004, the event received full press coverage.

But the league kept the Rumsfeld medal cloaked in secrecy until the Daily News broke the story on Thursday, after club member James A. Ounsworth told a reporter that he was “astonished and ashamed” because “Rumsfeld is a failure. I don’t think you should give an award for failure.”

When asked about the secrecy surrounding the Rumsfeld medal, league spokeswoman Patricia Tobin said, “It’s up to the awardee. We always try to respect the wishes of the awardee.”

Asked why the league had chosen Rumsfeld to receive the medal, Tobin said, “I’m not going to be sharing that with anyone.”

The replacement of Donald Rumsfeld has been no great victory for anyone. He’s still the ‘official’ Secretary of Defense, and won’t be leaving that position until the end of this year, with a full government pension, and all the medals he can carry home. And worst of all, no one who replaces him will be any different.

-D.

Is the FBI doing its best to combat terrorism? – Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit – MSNBC.com:

Is the FBI doing its best to combat terrorism?
Highest-ranking Arab-American agent says no, sues for discrimination
By Lisa Myers, Jim Popkin & the NBC News Investigative Unit
Updated: 7:30 p.m. ET Dec 4, 2006

WASHINGTON – Bassem Youssef is the FBI’s highest-ranking Arab-American agent. He’s fluent in Arabic, ran the FBI’s offices in Saudi Arabia and is a terrorism expert. In fact, Youssef’s undercover work helping to infiltrate the terror organization of the so-called “blind sheik,” Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, earned him the intelligence community’s most-prestigious award, the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal.

But now, for the first time, Youssef is speaking out against the agency he loves.

“I don’t believe that the FBI’s doing everything it can to combat terrorism,” the 18-year FBI veteran tells NBC News.

Though he’s one of only six FBI agents with advanced Arabic skills, Youssef believes that, since 9/11, the FBI has blocked him from playing a significant role in the war on terror. He claims discrimination, and sued the FBI in 2003.

“To be totally set aside, blackballed since 9/11, makes absolutely no sense,” he says.

Beyond Youssef’s own employment claims, depositions of nearly a dozen top FBI officials in his case have exposed what critics say are serious shortcomings in the FBI’s approach to counterterrorism. The taped depositions, which have never been aired before, seem to reveal a stunning lack of knowledge about some terrorism basics.

Terrorism 101
Dale Watson, now retired, was the FBI’s top counterterrorism official before and after 9/11.

In a deposition taken on Dec. 8, 2004, Youssef’s lawyer Stephen Kohn asked Watson: “Do you know who Osama bin Laden’s spiritual leader was?”

Watson: Can’t recall.

Lawyer: And do you know the differences in the religion between Shiite and Sunni Muslims?

Watson: Not technically, no.

John Lewis was until recently the FBI’s deputy assistant director of counterterrorism. During his deposition on May 17, 2005, he was asked if he knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis.

Lewis: You know, generally. Not very well.

Lawyer: Was there any relationship between the first World Trade Center bombing and the 9/11 attacks?

Lewis: I’m aware of no immediate relationship other than all emanates out of the Middle East, al-Qaida linkage, I believe. Not something I’ve studied recently that I’m conversant with.

Counterterrorism experts say such apparent ignorance of the enemy is alarming.

“Not knowing these basic tenets is symptomatic of a lack of deep knowledge about your principal adversary, and that is unacceptable,” says Michael Sheehan, an NBC News terrorism analyst.

Senior FBI officials argue on the tapes that it’s not necessary to have expertise in Arab culture — even in terrorism — to run the FBI’s war on terror. It’s leadership that matters most, they say.

“The subject-matter expertise is helpful, but it is not a prerequisite. That’s not what I look for,” said Gary Bald, the former executive assistant director for the National Security Branch of the FBI, in his March 14, 2005, deposition.

However, Youssef says expertise is critical in evaluating threats, recruiting informants and allocating resources.

NBC News: You’re saying the biggest problem is the FBI still doesn’t have the expertise to effectively fight the war on terror?

Youssef: Yes, I believe that is the case. If you can’t get inside the mind of the enemy, we will never succeed.

Five years after 9/11, critics say the FBI has been slow to hire agents with Arabic skills or knowledge. In fact, only 33 of the FBI’s 12,000 agents have even a limited proficiency in Arabic, the agency says. Until recently, new agents used to get just two hours of Arabic culture training at the FBI facility in Quantico, Va. They now receive 12 hours of instruction in Islam and the evolution of militant Islamic ideology, plus much more extensive counterterrorism training.

FBI spokesman John Miller concedes that subject-matter expertise does matter in counterterrorism.

“To have that depth of subject-matter expertise and the executive and leadership skills is certainly a plus,” Miller says.

Miller adds that while top FBI officials may not have been able to pass a lawyer’s pop quiz version of Jihad Jeopardy, the FBI has brought in and trained a new generation of agents and supervisors with years of frontline experience handling terror cases.

“To ask them to go back and pick out details from cases from years ago, or other questions that I refer to as kind of Trivial Pursuit, they have analysts working for them who have those answers cold,” Miller says. “That is not necessarily their function at the top.”

Miller adds that the FBI is working hard to increase its pool of six fluent, Arabic-speaking agents.

“It’s not enough. And it’s not for lack of trying,” he says. “But you can’t just focus on agents. We’ve tried to break down the walls between agents, analysts and language analysts. They now work as a team, and we have doubled the number of language analysts and increased by 300 percent the number of Arab speakers among them. We still need to build on those numbers, but we have vastly improved.”

Justice Department watchdog
A Justice Department watchdog recently ruled that the FBI had blocked Youssef from getting a counterterrorism job because, in part, Youssef had angered and embarrassed FBI Director Robert Mueller at a face-to-face meeting with a prominent U.S. congressman. The DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility wrote in July that Mueller and senior FBI officials were upset when Youssef complained to Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., that Youssef’s counterterrorism training and Arabic skills weren’t being used after 9/11.

The FBI says in legal filings that it never discriminated against Youssef. Miller says he can’t discuss the merits of the case because it is still in litigation. However, some FBI agents privately grumble that Youssef has an inflated sense of his own worth, and used poor judgment in taking on the FBI at the meeting with Mueller and Wolf.

Youssef says he never meant to be disloyal or to air his problems outside the family.

“I had gone through every possible channel that I could think of within the family, and nothing was done,” he says.

Youssef says he will not give up his fight.

“I think every American would do whatever they can to fight terrorism, because we will never forget 9/11,” he says. “And having worked counterterrorism for so many years and not to do it, that devastates me.”

For now, Youssef has a desk job with the FBI running a squad that analyzes links between telephone calls — a far cry from terrorism’s frontlines.

Crooks and Liars » He’s back! This Time it’s Free Speech:

Kenneth Starr will take the side of an Alaska school board against a student who displayed a banner that said: “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” off school property.

Frederick was suspended in 2002 after he unfurled the 14-foot-long banner — a reference to marijuana use — just outside school grounds as the Olympic torch relay moved through the Alaskan capital headed for the Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Even though Frederick was standing on a public sidewalk, school officials argue that he and other students were participating in a school-sponsored event. They had been let out of classes and were accompanied by their teachers.

Principal Deborah Morse ordered the 18-year-old senior to take down the sign, but he refused. That led to a 10-day suspension for violating a school policy by promoting illegal drug use. (h/t Joe)

EVEN VENERABLE TITLES BELIEVE IN makeovers. That’s why there’s a new New Yorker Web site coming.

A relaunch of the famed weekly publication’s Internet address will appear before the end of February, confirmed a spokesperson for the Conde Nast publication. Web editor Blake Eskin and deputy editor Pamela McCarthy are teaming up to develop the site, and they have invited staffers throughout the publication to offer ideas.

The news originally appeared in yesterday’s WWD, a sister publication to The New Yorker.

A spokeswoman pointedly refused to confirm other details of the story, however–including speculation that the site would include blogs from several of the magazine’s writers, first vetted by its legendary fact-checking network.

She echoed David Remnick, the editor in chief, when he told the fashion title that “the site will reflect the values of the magazine” and “everything is up for grabs.”

Conde Nast acquired the social-news site Reddit in late October, similar to digg.com, with the strategy to integrate its structure into other online properties.

“We’re looking at various ways to leverage the Reddit technology across the various Conde Nast sites,” says Jennifer Miller, a CondeNet spokesperson.

Gassed His Own People:

The Justice Department announced new rules yesterday that will make it harder for prosecutors to bring criminal charges against companies, bending to intense pressure from business groups that claim the government has overreached in its pursuit of financial malfeasance.

In presenting the revised rules, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty called the changes a substantial and direct response to a lobbying drive by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, among others.

Since devastating bankruptcies at Enron and WorldCom prompted Congress to pass a stringent corporate accountability law four years ago, business interests increasingly have pushed back on efforts to police their operations, arguing that the government has imposed too many costs on companies with too few benefits for investors.

TULLYCAST IT!

• X
• Facebook
• Tumblr
• Reddit
• Print

Like Loading...