Popular Impressions Outside Government

A couple weeks ago, for a different reason, I quoted a passage from Richard E. Neustadt's Presidential Power:

What is incredibly gut-wrenching to so many of us is the previously unimaginable extent to which the GOP Congressional leadership and noise machine has been willing to defend the indefensible. Which brings me to the opposite page (165) of my copy of Presidential Power:

In the aftermath of Watergate, however, we have seen occasions where distinctions between reputation and prestige seemed to dissolve, where Washingtonians seemed quite like members of the general public, reacting to a President in almost the same terms, conducting themselves accordingly.' One such occasion was the "Saturday night massacre" of 1973 when Nixon fired the Watergate Prosecutor, forcing resignations from the Attorney General and his Deputy, all of whom responded on TV. This dramatic sequence-televised and thus "firsthand" in all parts of the country seemed so to contradict the President's contentions as to drain them of credibility, enlarging what we now label a credibility "gap," indeed extending it so wide as to cast doubt on his legitimacy and with it his authority as President. Nixon seemed to be engaging in a cover-up of criminal activity. He seemingly was fighting law enforcement. But he had sworn an oath of office encompassing the "take-care" clause. Hence the cloud on his legitimacy. The "massacre" tripped off impeachment proceedings. It is easy to see why.

What was striking then is that inside the government or near it, in the watchful circle of the Washington community, reactions against Nixon seemed to have so much in common with the popular impressions outside government. Citizens at large were swept into a "firestorm" of protest and suspicion. But so were commentators, congressmen, and civil servants. Apparently the President's behavior planted the same question in all minds. Some Washingtonians, waiting upon evidence, were slower than others to draw ultimate conclusions, and slower by far than some citizens, but he was treated henceforth with reserve throughout the Washington community. Diplomacy aside-there was a crisis in the Middle East-he turned away from governing and focused on the prospect of impeachment. Had Nixon tried to be assertive in domestic spheres, I take it that he would have been ignored or resisted. All over town officials shook themselves free of the White House, released by suspicion from deference, distancing their programs from his person. This occurred within one year of his triumphant re-election, three years before expiration of his term. For Washingtonians it was a most uncharacteristic reaction, especially so early in the term. Calculations about possible impeachment played a part, no doubt. But so did outraged feelings about Nixon's performance. There was precious little rallying around him. Instead, so far as I can judge, there was a widespread sense, even in some quarters of the White House, that he had compromised his right to be there and should go, impeached or not.

It is hard to imagine Washingtonians having less "in common with the popular impressions outside government" today (or during the Clinton impeachment proceedings.) As Digby correctly noted in her magnificent speech, the mainstream media -- the High Broderism and Meal Ticket Journalists -- have failed us completely.

Sure enough, today provides yet another example of "official punditry" marching completely out of step with the public at large. I'd link straight to Timothy Noah's piece in Slate, but (as always) I found Digby had already told him how it is by the time I finished reading it.

But poor little Scooter can't even spend a month in jail. He can't even spend a day in jail.

And apparently, as predicted, that's just fine with a good portion of the DC establishment. The oh-so-jaded political observers like Tim Noah see this whole thing as some sort of partisan game of tag. Let the plebes natter on about the following the rules --- we'll call the play by play and let the little people know who's "winning." From their perches atop the commentariat they smugly dismiss the concerns of average Americans who are enraged that these people keep cheating and getting away with things that ordinary citizens and even powerful Democrats could never dream of getting away with --- they relentlessly smear their opponents with the filthiest lies, they stage partisan impeachments, they steal elections, they illegally start wars and make up novel authoritarian theories of governance --- and then they use their powers to excuse their minions from the consequences of these actions if they happen to get sloppy and get caught. None of them ever pay. Ever.

How revolting.

Scooter, felon

What a coward the president truly is. I've got nothing to add right now, other than my sense of outrage. Another fine example of the Bush administration manipulating justice for political purposes.

Guilty

Sorry this blog has so many cobwebs. Work has DB on overload. I hope someday to get back to regular blogging.

In the meantime, what a day. Above is the (crappy) image DB made in October 2005, when Scooter first made the headlines as being "obsessed" with Joe Wilson. It seemed too convenient that just one guy was being put out there as the villain.

Today, guilty on four-of-five counts, Scooter still seems like the Fall Guy to DB. But it's nice to see the justice system working (at least for a day).

Also, a shout out to the entire crew at FireDogLake for their unbelievable efforts. Just yesterday, Atrios said blogging is harder than it looks. The lack of posts here over the last few months is evidence of that. Blogging, especially blogging well, is a time-consuming labor. The bloggers who are capable of delivering on a daily basis, with such a consistent high-level of quality are amazing to DB.

I cannot state this enough. The bloggers who crank out insightful and well-written content consistently and frequently are awe-inspiring to me.

And throughout this case, FDL, TalkLeft, The Left Coaster, The Next Hurrah, Digby, Glenn Greenwald... and all the commenters... OUTSTANDING!!!!

Thank you to all of them.

We were looking really, really hard

The Boston Globe reports today that the government has the capability and has been actively monitoring millions of international communications:

WASHINGTON -- The National Security Agency, in carrying out President Bush's order to intercept the international phone calls and e-mails of Americans suspected of links to Al Qaeda, has probably been using computers to monitor all other Americans' international communications as well, according to specialists familiar with the workings of the NSA.

The Bush administration and the NSA have declined to provide details about the program the president authorized in 2001, but specialists said the agency serves as a vast data collection and sorting operation. It captures reams of data from satellites, fiberoptic lines, and Internet switching stations, and then uses a computer to check for names, numbers, and words that have been identified as suspicious.

"The whole idea of the NSA is intercepting huge streams of communications, taking in 2 million pieces of communications an hour," said James Bamford, the author of two books on the NSA, who was the first to reveal the inner workings of the secret agency.

"They have a capacity to listen to every overseas phone call," said Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, which has obtained documents about the NSA using Freedom of Information Act requests.

Forget the implications of Big Brother for a minute and think about this: Is it possible that the same White House that is capable of monitoring every single piece of international communication leaving the United States was unable to find an email from Karl Rove to Stephen Hadley about Joe Wilson and Niger, when they were exclusively searching his mailbox for exactly that topic?

Judy Miller... for the full hour!

Some gems from the current delegate from the Great State of Denial...

I really don't know what kind of brought about this 40-day tsunami on me, these attacks after I came out of jail...

Are you kidding me? No idea? Start with Greg Mitchell's column from Oct. 15, and then think about this: Results 1 - 10 of about 346,000 for "Judy Miller Liar"

Well, I think I just want to talk about the serious attacks and criticism. What "Newsweek" magazine called "The New York Times'" war on Miller.

Oh, you read "Newsweek?" Well perhaps you read Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball when they pointed out that Scooter Libby told you, as you stated, that the still-classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq contained "even stronger" evidence of the uranium claims when the document, later declassified, revealed the opposite. You got played. PLAYED. That isn't a mistake; he knew what the report said. He lied to you and you went to jail to protect him from justice.

He lied to your face about Iraq and you still say this:

But, when you're wrong, if they're wrong, you're going to be wrong. And boy, those stories were wrong. So now, the issue is, why were they wrong? Why was the information wrong and what happened to it when it got to the White House? Was it manipulated? Was it exaggerated?

That's what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is supposed to be looking at. We've all been waiting for this report now, for a long, long time. So far, none of the other commissions have found any evidence of deliberate manipulation, of pressure.

But, I think we really deserve answers to those questions. And I'm sorry that a lot of media organizations didn't look into this either.

ANSWERS?? MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS?? What is the gravity like on your home planet? You, a veteran journalist, were lied to and used to spread false claims to drive the nation to war! Why do you need other people to investigate whether the information was "manipulated or exaggerated?"

And Larry, I'm ready to move on and not to hold grudges and I have a kind of quaint, old-fashioned idea that you don't trash colleagues and you don't trash an institution you're working for. And I'm not going to trash former colleagues either, or the institution that I've worked for, happily, for so many years.

Yeah, well you just trashed them by saying that. If you don't want to trash them, say nice things or say nothing. Don't indicate that there's a reason you won't say what could be said. And don't use words like "quaint." It only reminds us of your friends' thoughts about the humane treatment of prisoners that once were part of our national ideals.

DB pauses from this rant to ask how Larry King gets away with softballs like "I got a very nice letter from you when you were in jail. What was that like?"

I tried to keep a journal. But it was very hard to write in jail, Larry, because until the last month, I didn't have a computer. I can barely read my own handwriting. Everything had to be done by hand.

Unbelievable.

It's continued, but al Qaeda, without a doubt, I think, has been significantly weakened by the international war on terrorism, that has been led by this administration.

Without a doubt? You mean, like it's a slam dunk? Of course it is! There's no point in debating it or even questioning whether that's true... it's beyond a doubt... What's that Larry? A real question?

Was it unfair when those of your critics said you were a supporter of the administration? Not just a journalist, but a proponent.

Well, it's close to a real question. What's your answer, Judy?

No, I don't support the administration. I was reporting on the administration.

You certainly don't! In fact, when you said "al Qaeda, without a doubt, I think, has been significantly weakened by the international war on terrorism, that has been led by this administration" just 10 seconds earlier, that was clearly an unbiased lack of support!

I hope this ordeal is over for me.

Now you know how DB feels about you.

Plamegate vs. Secret Prisons

DB may eat these words later, but a first knee-jerk reaction here is that the Washington Post's Dana Priest was right to go with her story about the secret prisons in Eastern Europe and would be right to protect her sources.

It's important to know what our government is doing in our names.

On the other hand, it was of no benefit whatsoever to learn that Valerie Plame was a covert agent. Zero. That wasn't whistleblowing, that was revenge.

Found: Media Outrage

When the Libby indictment came down last Friday, DB wondered where the media outrage was.

After all:

Members of the administration were lying to reporters. Take one example, one which Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball caught: Libby told Judy Miller that the still-classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq contained "even stronger" evidence of the uranium claims. The document, later declassified, revealed the opposite. Not only should this be an outrage to reporters who put trust in sources, but -- memo to Pat Roberts -- there's a reason you should be investigating "Phase II."

As Arianna Huffington points out that Chris Matthews points out (and DB now points out), they used the grey ladies and the boob tube in concert to play the American public like a pipe, planting stories in the NY Times to control the topics on their Sunday morning TV appearances and bolster the credibility of their claims.

Members of the administration were lying on TV shows. Take one example: Dick Cheney flat out lied to the American people on "Meet the Press" when he said he didn't know anything about Joe Wilson, his trip or who sent him. All host Tim Russert had to say about that interview when the Libby indictment came down was that it "would be scrutinized." Come on, where's the outrage? He used you.

They directed the prosecutor to the media and placed a significant burden on reporters. This should be the biggest source of outrage. According to the indictment, Libby told Fitzgerald that he heard about Plame from Russert. He caused reporters like Russert to fall under the scrutiny of the prosecutor. All the legal fees, hastles, worrying and damage to their reputations, inability to report on the case with the appearance of impartiality... all of it because of Libby's loose lips and pointed fingers.

DB continues to be baffled by the revelation from Russert that Libby "didn't call me as a source; he called me as a viewer." Then why on earth did you fight a battle all the way to the Supreme Court? To protect viewer mail? Members of the media fought an important battle for the First Amendment, only to have it undermined by the administration's cynical use of the press.

Well, as promised in the title of this post, DB has found some quality media outrage, a column in the LA Times by Robert Scheer.

Let the rage flow, media members. You will all feel better. You'll trust just about anybody, apparently. Why not trust DB?

Plamegate: First reactions

1. Russert finally talks and says... Nothing! He couldn't say that earlier?

2. Where's the outrage from the media? Russert was discussing the fact that Cheney lied to him on Meet the Press, but all he said was that interview "would be scrutinized." He can't even admit his show was used to spread misinformation.

3. Where's the outrage from the media, Part II: The media made a huge stink about protecting sources. How could a whistleblower feel free to come forward? Well, know we know for a fact, not only were no whistleblowers being protected, but Libby was telling Fitzgerald that the media was to blame. Do I need to repeat that?

Reporters were willing to go to jail to protect a guy who told the prosecutor to go after them!

4. Cheney tells us not to judge Libby until he's had his chance to face the charges. Does anybody in the universe think Libby is going to trial? He's the FALL GUY! There's no way he allows this to drag on in court, with the Vice President possibly being called in to testify. No way the administration lets the rationale for war get debated in the "trial of the century" or whatever they label it.

5. Anybody who said or says Plame wasn't undercover... Time to put that one to rest.

More to come...

Memo to Graham: You are a senator

Lindsay Graham repeated over and over on CNN's "Larry King Live" that if there is an indictment for a technical violation of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, then "the culture" in Washington has changed and it would be a sad thing for reporters and politicians.

Excuse me, but was this law written in stone? Can't senators like Graham change the law and make the culture "happy" again?

Or better yet, can't politicians be trusted with sensitive intelligence during a war?

UPDATE: Here's why I didn't put Graham's quote in quotes (smile):

GRAHAM: I don't know who's involved or what they will be charged with, but if it's a technical violation of the espionage act, then the culture of this town has changed. I hope it's not that.

The only reason I feel bad about giving Graham a hard time is, every once in a while, he throws out something like this:

I would argue that our numbers are not tied to the Supreme Court choice but the nation's future is and if you want a fight we've got one in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've lost 2,000 young men and women over there.

"We'll get back in what you take out"

Everybody remembers the infamous "16 Words" in the State of the Union which triggered the entire Plamegate investigation. Many also remember that former CIA director George Tenet pulled that reference from a speech delivered by President Bush a few months before the SOTU.

Who took the blame for the words creeping back into Bush's speech? That would be former Deputy National Security Advisor (and current NSA) Stephen Hadley.

Hadley, in a rare hour-long, on-the-record session with reporters, said he had received two memos from the CIA and a phone call from Tenet raising objections to a section in a speech Bush was to give in Cincinnati on Oct. 7.

But he suggested the entire episode slipped his mind when Mr. Bush's State of the Union speech was being vetted.

So the dubious "intelligence" claims suggesting Saddam Hussein had nukes were pulled out, but somehow made it back in later. An innocent mistake? Hard to believe that a claim that sensational would accidentally slip back in to the president's biggest speech of the year... a rehearsed speech delivered directly to Congress and televised in prime time to the entire nation.

Well, as Newsweek reports, rejected intel supporting the call to war in Iraq had some big allies in the White House.

Behind the scenes, no one pushed the terror link harder than Libby. He urged Colin Powell's staff to include the Prague meeting in the secretary of State's speech to the United Nations. But Powell wanted no part of it. After one long session debating the evidence before the speech, Libby turned to a Powell aide. "Don't worry about any of this," he said, according to someone who was in the room. "We'll get back in what you take out." They didn't. Powell refused to use the line, but Libby's audacity stunned everyone at the table. "The notion that they've become a gang has some merit," says a longtime colleague of Libby's who requested anonymity to preserve the friendship. "A small group who only talk to each other ... You pay a price for that."

Still think it was an accident?

UPDATE: According to the American Prospect, it is being reported by Italian newspaper La Repubblica that Hadley met with the Italian officials linked to the forged Niger documents on Sept. 9, 2002.

Still think it was an accident?

What did Condi know and when?

If Monday's news on Raw Story and this Oct. 18 story by the Washington Post are correct, then Condoleezza Rice may be knee deep in Plamegate.

First off, let's look at the timeline and what Rice said about her knowledge of Joe Wilson's trip to Niger.

Rice told a "press gaggle" on July 11, 2003 that she learned about Wilson's trip on a TV show "about a month ago," a claim she repeated two days later while talking to CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer on "Late Edition."

Presumably, she was referring to her appearance on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on June 8. She also appeared that day on NBC's "Meet The Press" and CBS' "Face The Nation," but on neither of those programs was any reference made to Wilson's trip (although Rice was grilled on the removal of the "16 Words" from the State of the Union). Stephanopoulos asked her for her reaction to Nicholas Kristof's May 6 column in the New York Times, which mentioned Wilson's trip, though not his name.

But the Washington Post reported the following on Oct. 18, 2005 (emphasis mine):

One former CIA official told prosecutors early in the probe about efforts by Cheney's office and his allies at the National Security Council to obtain information about Wilson's trip as long as two months before Plame was unmasked in July 2003, according to a person familiar with the account.

If this report is correct, not only is it clear that there were people in the White House in May 2003 who were aware of Joe Wilson and the problem he represented for the administration, but some of them were in the NSC.

Now, it's possible that Rice was not one of the NSC members who was digging up dirt on Wilson. But how likely is it that the National Security Advisor, one of 11 principle members of the NSC, not to mention one of nine members of the White House Iraq Group, would have no idea what NSC members were doing in concert with the Vice President?

As Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Rice was tasked with "determining the agenda, ensuring that necessary papers are prepared, and recording NSC actions," as well as calling meetings of the NSC Principals Committee and steering its agenda. Are we really to believe she learned about Wilson's trip weeks later than other NSC members, a month after Kristof's column and, even then, only from Stephanopoulos? And if so, should a National Security Advisor be that unaware of the actions of the other NSC members?

In any event, Raw Story reported Monday that Rice was told about Valerie Plame in June:

Those close to the investigation say that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been told that David Wurmser, then a Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney on loan from the office of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton, met with Cheney and his chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in June 2003 and told Libby that Plame set up the Wilson trip. He asserted that it was a boondoggle, the sources said.

Libby then shared the information with Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, the sources said. Wurmser also passed on the same information about Wilson to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, they added.

While it remains unclear if this information reached Rice before her June 8 appearance on "This Week," if she did discuss Plame with Wurmser that month, then what message was she trying to deliver to the press on July 11? (emphasis mine)

DR. RICE: The IAEA reported it I believe in March. But I will tell you that, for instance, on Ambassador Wilson's going out to Niger, I learned of that when I was sitting on whatever TV show it was, because that mission was not known to anybody in the White House. And you should ask the Agency at what level it was known in the Agency.

Q When was that TV show, when you learned about it?

DR. RICE: A month ago, about a month ago.

Q Can I ask you about something else?

DR. RICE: Yes. Are you sure you're through with this?

Did the press do Rice a huge favor by changing the subject?

If there was no concerted effort to smear Wilson, why did Rice bring his name into the discussion? They were talking about the IAEA. Why did she suggest that reporters dig around to find out what the Agency knew about Wilson's trip? Remember, she had already discussed the "boondoggle set up by his wife." Also remember, this was just three days before Robert Novak published his column outing Plame.

Rice may be pleading ignorance throughout this entire investigation -- and it might work -- but it sure looks like it's getting harder to prove.

UPDATE: The New York Times is reporting that Cheney learned about Plame and then told Libby, which seems to conflict with Raw Story's report that Wurmser told Cheney and Libby simultaneously. It could just be that Wurmser told Cheney first. It does not contradict Raw Story's report that Wurmser told Rice. Hopefully the facts will all come out soon. It certainly doesn't look like a good development for either Cheney or Libby.

Channeling Colt Seavers

Today's LA Times story about Scooter Libby's "obsession" with Joe Wilson sure is fun to believe.

But before we use our clearly inferior photoshop skills to land Libby the lead role in "Monk," the cynic in DB tries desperately not to imagine Lyndie England taking over for Heather Thomas and gives Libby the starring role he will likely own -- The Fall Guy.

It's probably completely true that the Scoot spent his weekends creating his own Dewey Decimal system for tracking his perceived foes.

But isn't it a little too convenient that as possible indictments are coming down, a single administration official (and not named Rove) is being characterized as the kind of guy who would go too far when it came to Joe Wilson?

Is it a coincidence that "I. Scooter Libby" and "G. Gordon Liddy" sound so similar? ("If somebody wants to shoot me, I'm prepared to have that done. You just let me know when and where, and I'll be there.")

The bar's set pretty high, Scoot!