On 30 Mar 2004 02:42:59 -0800, (maff), Message ID:
<18510aff.0403300242.50762067@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
This Isn't America
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0330-04.htm
Published on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 by the New York Times
This Isn't America
by Paul Krugman
Last week an opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about the
killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin said, "This isn't America; the government
did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of
the threat to justify their attack."
So even in Israel, George Bush's America has become a byword for
deception and abuse of power. And the administration's reaction to
Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" provides more evidence of
something rotten in the state of our government.
The truth is that among experts, what Mr. Clarke says about Mr. Bush's
terrorism policy isn't controversial. The facts that terrorism was
placed on the back burner before 9/11 and that Mr. Bush blamed Iraq
despite the lack of evidence are confirmed by many sources — including
"Bush at War," by Bob Woodward.
And new evidence keeps emerging for Mr. Clarke's main charge, that the
Iraq obsession undermined the pursuit of Al Qaeda. From yesterday's USA
Today: "In 2002, troops from the Fifth Special Forces Group who
specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin
Laden to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements
were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures."
That's why the administration responded to Mr. Clarke the way it
responds to anyone who reveals inconvenient facts: with a campaign of
character assassination.
Some journalists seem, finally, to have caught on. Last week an
Associated Press news analysis noted that such personal attacks were
"standard operating procedure" for this administration and cited "a
behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit Richard Foster," the Medicare
actuary who revealed how the administration had deceived Congress about
the cost of its prescription drug bill.
But other journalists apparently remain ready to be used. On CNN, Wolf
Blitzer told his viewers that unnamed officials were saying that Mr.
Clarke "wants to make a few bucks, and that [in] his own personal life,
they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as
well."
This administration's reliance on smear tactics is unprecedented in
modern U.S. politics — even compared with Nixon's. Even more disturbing
is its readiness to abuse power — to use its control of the government
to intimidate potential critics.
To be fair, Senator Bill Frist's suggestion that Mr. Clarke might be
charged with perjury may have been his own idea. But his move reminded
everyone of the White House's reaction to revelations by the former
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill: an immediate investigation into whether
he had revealed classified information. The alacrity with which this
investigation was opened was, of course, in sharp contrast with the
administration's evident lack of interest in finding out who leaked the
identity of the C.I.A. operative Valerie Plame to Bob Novak.
And there are many other cases of apparent abuse of power by the
administration and its Congressional allies. A few examples: according
to The Hill, Republican lawmakers threatened to cut off funds for the
General Accounting Office unless it dropped its lawsuit against *****
Cheney. The Washington Post says Representative Michael Oxley told
lobbyists that "a Congressional probe might ease if it replaced its
Democratic lobbyist with a Republican." Tom DeLay used the Homeland
Security Department to track down Democrats trying to prevent
redistricting in Texas. And Medicare is spending millions of dollars on
misleading ads for the new drug benefit — ads that look like news
reports and also serve as commercials for the Bush campaign.
On the terrorism front, here's one story that deserves special mention.
One of the few successful post-9/11 terror prosecutions — a case in
Detroit — seems to be unraveling. The government withheld information
from the defense, and witnesses unfavorable to the prosecution were
deported (by accident, the government says). After the former lead
prosecutor complained about the Justice Department's handling of the
case, he suddenly found himself facing an internal investigation — and
someone leaked the fact that he was under investigation to the press.
Where will it end? In his new book, "Worse Than Watergate," John Dean,
of Watergate fame, says, "I've been watching all the elements fall into
place for two possible political catastrophes, one that will take the
air out of the Bush-Cheney balloon and the other, far more disquieting,
that will take the air out of democracy."
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32743-2004Mar29
washingtonpost.com
Condi in the Crossfire
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 29, 2004; 9:03 AM
No one seems to be talking about Condoleezza Rice for vice president
these days.
With seemingly everyone in the administration drafted in the war on
Richard Clarke, Rice is the general, the leader, the attacker who has
been most personal in trying to discredit her former colleague.
Now she's on the cover of Time, with a headline: "Is Condi the Problem?"
She was on "60 Minutes" last night, saying she'd love to testify before
the 9/11 commission but it would be a bad precedent.
Clarke--who almost no one had heard of eight days ago--was on "Meet the
Press," complaining about "a taxpayer-paid character assassination
campaign." And his book is in its fifth printing.
It's quite amazing, in media terms, how the image of Rice has abruptly
changed from coolly efficient, super-competent foreign policy tutor for
Bush to that of an architect of a flawed terrorism policy who has gotten
down in the mud with one of her critics. Fairly or unfairly, her stock
on the Beltway exchange is dropping.
"The White House acknowledged Sunday that on the day after the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush asked his top counterterrorism
adviser, Richard A. Clarke, to find out whether Iraq was involved," says
the New York Times.
"Mr. Bush wanted to know 'did Iraq have anything to do with this? Were
they complicit in it?' Condoleezza Rice, the president's national
security adviser, recounted in an interview on CBS' '60 Minutes.'"
Last week, the White House suggested the conversation had never
happened. That's now inoperative.
Time says of Rice: "Her showdown with Clarke got bitterly personal. On
ABC News, Clarke lumped Rice together with Cheney as 'mean and nasty
people.' But Rice gave as good as she got. Clarke's claim that he once
divined from her body language that she had never heard of al-Qaeda, she
told the network correspondents, was 'arrogant in the extreme. I find it
peculiar that ***** Clarke was sitting there reading my body language. I
didn't know he was good at that too.'
"But all the sarcasm and backbiting in Washington could not obscure a
central truth: by casting doubt on the performance of the Bush team in
the months before Sept. 11, Clarke had taken aim at the competence of
Rice, who was not only his boss but is also the person charged with
making sure that the President's foreign policy priorities are straight
and that the best intelligence is landing on his desk. For the first
time in more than three years, during which she has usually been the
subject of coverage so flattering that it would make Donald Trump blush,
the first woman ever to be National Security Adviser was on the spot.
"It was inevitable that, sooner or later, Rice's performance would come
under scrutiny. That would have happened with or without Clarke's book.
Any fair-minded observer would admit that the Bush Administration has
had its successes in foreign policy, but with continued instability in
Iraq, Osama bin Laden still at large, a steady drumbeat of terrorist
atrocities around the world and an extraordinary degree of popular
opposition abroad to its policies, the Administration's performance is,
at the very least, wobbly. If Bush is to be criticized for his
Administration's foreign policy performance, then Rice will be too."
U.S. News hits a similar theme: "Condoleezza Rice had the golden touch.
Defying stereotypes, prejudices, and humble beginnings, she showed an
early talent in everything from ice skating to academics and,
eventually, became an expert in the virtually all-male, all-white world
of Sovietology...Now, Condi Rice is under attack as never before."
The Baltimore Sun also weighs in on the tarnishing of Rice:
"For three years at the pinnacle of power, Condoleezza Rice has been a
picture of steely self-confidence and a symbol of what brains, grit and
poise can achieve in a country where her African-American ancestors, as
she has said, were considered 'three-fifths of a man.'
"Now, having served as President Bush's close friend, confidante and
adviser through two wars, while leading a revamping of U.S. foreign
policy, Rice, 49, finds her credibility and competence under fire in a
politically charged public duel with a former White House
counterterrorism chief.
"For a few moments last week, flashes of anger pierced Rice's famously
cool demeanor. She was responding to accusations by the former aide,
Richard A. Clarke, that she and Bush largely ignored the al-Qaida threat
before Sept. 11 and that Rice had once even appeared not to have heard
of al-Qaida."
Kerry's taking aim at Rice as well, says the Los Angeles Times:
"Entering the fray over the Bush administration's anti-terrorism
efforts, Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry on Saturday
called on national security advisor Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly
before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.
'Condoleezza Rice can find time to do "60 Minutes" on television before
the American people,' Kerry said in a meeting with reporters. 'She ought
to find 60 minutes to speak to the commission under oath. We are talking
about the security of our country.'"
Newsweek has Clarke inflicting some collateral damage:
"Richard Clarke's charge that George W. Bush largely ignored the Al
Qaeda threat before the September 11 attacks has dealt a sharp blow to
the president's ratings on a crucial issue. According to the latest
NEWSWEEK poll, the percentage of voters who say they approve of the way
the president has handled terrorism and homeland security has slid to 57
percent, down from a high of 70 percent two months ago...Still, the
president's overall approval rating remains steady at 49 percent and
Bush remains neck and neck with presumptive Democratic Party nominee
Senator John Kerry.
"Although exactly half of the American public has paid at least some
attention to Clarke's allegations, only a quarter of those who have been
following the story say they see Clarke as a selfless public servant.
Fifty percent suspect Clarke has some personal or political agenda,
while another 25 percent don't know what to make of his accusations. By
a margin of 61 percent to 34 percent, Americans feel that, overall, the
Bush administration has taken the terror threat seriously. The numbers
are the reverse for Bush's predecessor: 65 percent are critical of how
seriously they believe the Clinton administration took the threat."
American Prospect's Michael Tomasky sees Clarke winning this round:
"Well, it's been almost a week now, and the verdict is in: The usual
smears and deceits aren't working this time.
"Some of the administration's attempts to heap discredit on Richard
Clarke have been comical, like ***** Cheney's assertion that Clarke was
'out of the loop.' Uh, out of the loop? Your counterterrorism czar? If
Clarke was indeed out of the loop, that would only have been because
Cheney and his comrades demoted this Clinton-tainted public servant as
one of their early acts in office. Subsequent events demonstrated that,
just maybe, Clarke should have been in the loop. Not the best talking
point.
"Others have become tired, as stale as an aging Vegas comic's routine.
Administration officials, their amen corner in the right-wing press, and
the Republican members of the September 11 commission have all tried to
assail Clarke's 'motives' and accuse him of partisanship. But Clarke
shot down the motive charge forcefully and effectively; as for
partisanship, it is chiefly the GOP commissioners trying to carry the
administration's water who look partisan. ...
"But none of it has worked. Partly this is because of Clarke himself.
When the administration hit back at John DiIulio, the former director of
its faith-based programs who said in an Esquire interview that the White
House was being run by 'Mayberry Machiavellis,' DiIulio stood down.
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill did a little better, but he, too,
quickly issued a semi-recantation saying that he planned on voting for
George W. Bush in the end. But Clarke has been imperturbable. As the
White House has ratcheted up its attacks, Clarke has ratcheted right
back."
Josh Marshall doesn't quite call it a coverup, but:
"What this is about isn't Condi Rice or Richard Clarke or even George W.
Bush. It's about what happened -- finding out what happened. One side
wants to find out; the other doesn't. This whole story turns on that
simple fact. Why else try to destroy Clark unless what he has to say is
profoundly damaging? Liars are usually easily discredited; it's the
truth-tellers who need to be destroyed.
"This administration has used and continues to use literally
unprecedented means to maintain secrecy in order to keep this
information -- what happened -- bottled up in the White House and in
other parts of the executive branch.
"We don't know what Condi Rice did because the documents haven't been
released; nor have the minutes of meetings. Nor will she testify in
public or even privately under oath.
"We don't know what most of the key players did -- or at least we don't
know with certainty -- because the locks on the information are being
held that tight. Yet Clarke's new enemies now want to use the fact that
they control the Justice Department and the process of declassification
to knock him out because he is, to all appearances, trying to bust open
that very vault of secrecy.
"In other words, precisely the tools these folks refuse to use in the
interests of keeping everything secret they are more happy to use to
crush someone who is opposing them."
I take on one aspect of the Clarke controversy in today's print column:
Fox News correspondent Jim Angle says the tape had been sitting in his
desk drawer for a year and a half.
So when former counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke began assailing
President Bush's handling of al Qaeda in TV interviews for his new book,
Angle asked the National Security Council for permission to put on the
record a 2002 "background" briefing in which Clarke had defended the
administration's record. And the White House, which had mounted a media
blitz against Clarke, was all too willing to waive the confidentiality
rule that had shielded Clarke's identity when he was spinning for Bush.
"They knew zip," Angle says. "They didn't know when it happened, that it
happened or who was on the call."
But wasn't this an unfair outing of Clarke, who was blindsided? Former
senator Bob Kerrey, a member of the 9/11 investigating commission,
grumbled that "Fox should say 'occasionally fair and balanced' after
putting something like this out, because they violated a serious trust."
But Angle, who says he left two messages for Clarke, says: "It wasn't
his rule. It was an easy call," and that he would have done the same
story if he were still working for ABC.
What about the administration's extraordinary waiving of confidentiality
to discredit a critic? "It's important for the American people to have
the facts," says White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Clarke had made
"comments that contradict what he was now asserting publicly. It was
very much in the public interest." (Clarke says he would have been fired
had he criticized the president as a White House aide.)
McClellan says the administration has put such background comments on
the record before, though he concedes it "may be something of a unique
situation" to do it so long after the fact. To "be fair to all
reporters," he says, the White House notified the other network
correspondents who had heard the Clarke briefing that it was fair game.
Only Fox went with the story.
And here's a look at the questions spawned by the Jack Kelley affair:
Donatella Lorch recalls feeling frustrated as a Newsweek reporter during
the war in Afghanistan when she saw a Jack Kelley story about the role
of Special Forces and one of her editors asked: "How'd he get it? Can we
match it?"
Now that USA Today has found evidence of widespread fabrications and
plagiarism by Kelley, that conversation looks very different.
"It's very easy to make up a quote and say you talked to an Afghan
villager," she says. "Who in the world can possibly check that quote?"
Recalling that she and another reporter were the only ones to happen
upon the aftermath of a massacre in Burundi in 1993, Lorch says that if
she had been so inclined, "I could have easily made it up entirely."
The rise and spectacular fall of USA Today's star foreign correspondent
raises a host of difficult questions: Why did Kelley fake and embellish
his stories when he was devoting huge energy to reporting from world
trouble spots? Why did editors fail to question the dramatic scenes --
from the supposed drowning of Cuban refugees to Israeli settlers
ostensibly firing on a Palestinian taxi -- that only he seemed able to
get? What demons were driving a man who told Christian Reader magazine
that he was a journalist "because God has called me to proclaim truth"?
Current and former USA Today staffers, including those who had been
sympathetic to Kelley, say they are baffled by the elaborate deceptions
in which he engaged. Yet they say some editors were skeptical about
Kelley's reporting over the past decade because no one else could match
his seemingly perfect stories. Although editors sometimes grilled Kelley
about unnamed intelligence sources, his lofty standing remained intact.
A number of journalists with foreign reporting experience say they
believe the vast majority of their colleagues, many of whom risk their
lives in places such as Iraq, are scrupulously honest. But most also say
it's easier for a dishonest reporter in a distant land to steal material
or conjure up interviews and scenes that can't realistically be checked
by the home office.
Lisa Beyer, a Time assistant managing editor who reported from Israel
for nine years, recalls reading Kelley's eyewitness account of a
Jerusalem suicide bombing that the paper has since discredited. "I
remember thinking, 'Wow, this guy's amazing,' " Beyer says. But "when
questions started to be raised about Jack Kelley's reporting, my
reaction was mm-hmm, the stories were just too good."
Why didn't other correspondents blow the whistle on Kelley? "It's like
medical malpractice -- doctors don't turn one another in," Beyer says,
recalling her failure to complain about being plagiarized by a colleague
she liked. "It's a very close-knit community. You'd really be ostracized
if you started pointing fingers. It would be very uncomfortable
socially."
Kerry Luft, the Chicago Tribune's foreign editor and a former Brazil
correspondent, says that "an unscrupulous reporter certainly has a
smorgasbord of sources from which to pluck information that could be
passed off as genuine. Local news reports that are in another language
are available to people out there."
Still, says Luft, "ultimately you have to trust the reporter. How do you
know a reporter is on the west side of Chicago talking to someone who
gives his name as such-and-such?"
The Tribune recently dropped as a contract writer one of its veteran
correspondents, Uli Schmetzer, who made up an Australian psychiatrist
and attributed to him a derogatory quote about Aborigines that was
exposed by an Australian blogger. In 2002, the New York Times magazine
fired contributor Michael Finkel after discovering that the young Ivory
Coast cocoa worker he profiled was a composite.
Loren Jenkins, senior foreign editor at National Public Radio, maintains
that perpetrators are usually caught. "I've known people who lied about
their datelines, didn't visit the country they said they did, and
usually they got fired," says Jenkins, a former foreign reporter for
Newsweek and The Washington Post. "Everyone knows what everyone else is
doing. If someone is exaggerating or inventing, it very quickly becomes
known by those covering the same story."
Charles Lane, who as the New Republic's editor exposed the fabrications
of Stephen Glass, has reported from Cuba and was struck by Kelley's tale
of the refugee drownings. "I remember thinking, 'Great story, but
there's a number of things here that just don't seem right to me,' "
says Lane, now a Post reporter. "I didn't call up USA Today and say,
'Hey, your story's wrong.' It's human nature to believe a person who
says he was there is telling the truth."
The full extent of Kelley's deceptions remains unknown -- he denied
wrongdoing to USA Today's investigating panel, which examined his
stories back to 1993 and is now digging into his first decade at the
paper. Kelley's colleagues speculate that he -- in marked contrast to
Jayson Blair, who blamed his downfall on drugs and mental illness --
felt pressure to keep topping himself and that smaller deceptions grew
into larger ones. But the impact of Kelley's bogus journalism extends
well beyond the nation's largest circulation newspaper.
"He's really tainted the role of being a foreign correspondent," says
Lorch, now director of the Knight International Press Fellowships. "How
many people will now think, 'Oh God, are they really writing the truth?'
"
© 2004 washingtonpost.com
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
