This Blog Hates America!
Musings of the Bemused, by Michael D. Zungolo. Politics, Food, Film, Music, Passion. Dig In!

 



Subscribe to "This Blog Hates America!" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

 

 

  Monday, October 24, 2005


Reporting for duty

Iraq war vet Paul Hackett is aiming for a Senate seat -- and a progressive revival of the Democratic Party.

By Bill Frogameni

Oct. 25, 2005 | Marine Reservist Maj. Paul Hackett might be the one to put some real fight back into the Democratic Party. In a head-turning first run for office, Hackett, the first Iraq war veteran to enter the national political arena, narrowly lost a ongressional bid against Republican Jean Schmidt in a special election held last summer in Ohio's most conservative district. Despite a serious financial handicap, little political experience and a blunt political demeanor -- he called George W. Bush "chicken hawk" and "son of a bitch" with regard to the war -- Hackett's strong showing fired up Democrats nationwide.

Now the 43-year-old personal injury lawyer and war vet is gunning for Capitol Hill again, channeling his bravado into a 2006 run, launched officially on Monday, against Ohio's two-term Republican Sen. Mike DeWine. Some of Hackett's political rise can be attributed to ongoing ethical scandals that have rocked the Ohio GOP -- including Gov. Bob Taft's recent guilty plea for accepting illegal gifts. Hackett's volunteering to fight in Iraq, landing him in perilous locations like Fallujah and Ramadi, no doubt also earned him respect -- as have his candid criticisms of a war increasingly unpopular with Americans.

But perhaps most important is how Hackett conveys the kind of straight-shooting image that Democrats have been struggling so mightily to regain. He doesn't hesitate to endorse same-sex marriage, decry right-wing religious zealotry or, as an NRA member, disagree with other liberals about gun control. In a wide-ranging interview, Hackett spoke with Salon about withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, rethinking the failed war on drugs, reviving the progressive side of the party, and more.

In your congressional race, your opponent praised your service but said she thought you should "support our president" with regard to the war. What do you say to people who fault you for criticizing a war you volunteered to fight?

This is the United States and freedom of speech and freedom of political dissent are what make this country great. I served and I'm entitled to speak my mind. I back the president to the extent that I was willing to fight in his war -- and I did it voluntarily and happily, and I'd do it again.

You supported invading Afghanistan, but you've said you think we went to Iraq based on lies. You do agree with the president, however, in that you don't think we can "cut and run." What would you do differently in Iraq?

First of all, if this president wanted to succeed in Iraq, the first thing he would have done is listen to the generals in the very beginning when they said it would take more than 150,000 troops. General Shinseki said that and was summarily fired. That was before the invasion of Iraq.

But what would you do now?

If I were the president, I'd tell the military to figure out how we systematically and in organized fashion get our troops out of there, because the war's over. It's not going to get any better.

When you ran for Congress, you favored better training for Iraqi forces. Now you're saying we should get out?

There are two options: Increase troop strength or train the Iraqi military with a match of one American soldier for every Iraqi soldier. That's not going to happen. Everybody knows that, so if we're not going to train the Iraqi military, let's quit spending our money and spending our lives.

Here's the problem: We've been there two-plus years and there's nothing objective this country can point at and say, "This is what we've improved since we've been over there." The infrastructure is worse -- the electrical grid, the water grid, the sewage grid, the road system. All that infrastructure is worse today than when we got there two-plus years ago.

The Bush administration says there's progress.

Bullshit. I've been there. There's no success unless you call painting schools success. We've painted a lot of schools.

Let's talk about the so-called moral values issues that you say spurred you to run for Congress last summer. You were upset about what you called Republican grandstanding on Terri Schiavo, abortion and gay marriage.

Why are these the No. 1 issues in the United States when we've got an economy which is in even more dire danger of reaching rock bottom than it was when I embarked on the congressional race? Frankly, these social issues are simple and straightforward. I'll be happy to take each one individually. Gay marriage and gay rights: I'm fond of saying, "Who cares?" The debate is about whether or not American men and women can walk into a courthouse and get equal treatment under the law regardless of their sexual preference. Anything less than that is un-American.

And abortion?

It's bad -- nobody thinks it's good. The question is: "What do we do to eliminate it?" Period. The only thing that's going to eliminate it is education, not religious fanaticism. Until education eliminates it, it must remain safe, legal and rare [as possible].

And the right-wing uproar over Terri Schiavo?

Outrageous. Absolutely outrageous. And most Americans agree with that. The only Americans that don't are religious fanatics. They've got more in common with Osama bin Laden than I've got with them.

You sound like someone who could be held up as a liberal champion. Still, your position on guns is probably upsetting to doctrinaire liberals. How do you reconcile your position on gay marriage and gun control?

I don't need Washington, D.C., or the government in my private life. Period. I don't need them to dictate to my wife the decisions she can make with a doctor. I don't need a Washington politician to tell my neighbors what they can do in the privacy of their bedroom. And I don't need Washington politicians to tell me what guns to keep in my gun safe.

John Edwards' "two Americas" theory was central to the Kerry-Edwards campaign last year. After the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina, do you subscribe to this theory?

I look at it like there's one America. We're all in the same boat. We all have responsibilities. Those of us who've enjoyed success in life have a responsibility to give back to this country. And we have a responsibility, frankly, in a Christian sense -- or, for that matter, in a Muslim sense or a Jewish sense -- to take care of those who are less fortunate and make sure they get by. If that's what Edwards means by "two Americas," yeah, I subscribe to that. I perceive the religious fanatics in the Republican Party as socially irresponsible in many ways and that's one of the ways they're socially irresponsible -- that they are unwilling to help those who are less fortunate.

What do you propose to help solve our looming energy crisis?

First of all, leadership starts at the top. I couldn't help but smile when I saw President Bush, with this great anguish and difficulty, asking Americans [in the wake of Katrina] to consider conserving their energy consumption. Conservation is a part of the solution. Also, we need to spend the money to fund the research to come up with an alternative source of energy to fuel our cars and electrify our houses, and our industry. That can be done. I'm not a scientist, but I have confidence in the United States. We had the Manhattan Project and we put a man on the moon; I'm absolutely confident we can come up with a way to reduce and eventually eliminate our dependency on petrochemicals. But until that happens, we should be asking Americans to buy fuel-efficient vehicles. And we should be asking the American automobile industry to produce fuel-efficient vehicles.

What about the environment?

First of all, I wouldn't drill in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. That oil isn't even going to be online for another 10 or 11 years. And I would enforce all of the EPA laws this administration is working overtime to dismantle. There's a lot of money to be made in setting [good environmental] standards, in developing fuel-efficient vehicles and vehicles powered by alternative fuel.

What do you think of the drug war as it's been "fought" for the last 30 years? What would you do differently to deal with the drug problem?

Obviously the drug war is not working. With many Republican and Democratic administrations their solution is to build more prisons and put more people in jail. I'm not comfortable saying legalize it, but I think there needs to be an honest discussion about providing money to educate people and to treat people who have an addiction. Many Americans ask why we have to get touchy-feely about this. Well, I'll tell you why: because we're spending billions and billions of dollars to warehouse people in jail, and that ain't workin'.

You've described yourself as a fiscal conservative. How would you bring that to today's Washington?

We've got to cut the pork. There's some congressman up in Alaska who wants to build a $50 million bridge to nowhere. That's just one example of thousands. We subsidize large corporations, give them tax breaks, and they ship our jobs overseas.

Decrying bad spending is a favorite pastime in politics. Can you elaborate about what else you consider to be misspent funds?

Well, let's look at all the countries we spend billions to support who don't deserve our support. They don't deserve it because they're a threat to the United States -- their governments are dictatorships and they're not productive members of the world community. Take a look at Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and lots of others.

What do Democrats need to do to win and get the country back on track?

Stand up and fight for what they believe in and not be afraid of it. I think [there's been] a failure of ideas, a failure of leadership and a failure of having a message to convey. I'm harshly critical of the Democratic leadership to the extent that they stood by and had no critical comment or discussion leading up to their OK'ing the war in Iraq.

Does the Democratic Party stand for progressivism anymore?

There are pockets within the party that do. The constituents and the grass roots and the people out here in Ohio stand for that. I think they've been let down by their leadership.

Do you count yourself among the party's progressives?

Sure, if "progressive" means standing up for the things that made this country great. If it means fighting for working Americans, fighting for an economy that allows working Americans to survive and provide for their families, and if it means demanding a rational discussion about how our military is used or misused ... If that's what progressive stands for, yeah, you bet I'm progressive.

-- By Bill Frogameni, Salon.com 


11:05:53 PM    comment []

Quote(s) of the Day

 

"Something needs to be said that is a clear message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray. And I think it is most important that we make that statement and that it be on the record for history.

I very much worry that with the evidence that we have seen that grand juries across America are going to start asking questions about what is obstruction of justice, what is perjury. And I don’t want there to be any lessening of the standard. Because our system of criminal justice depends on people telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system and I don’t want it to be faded in any way."

--Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) on the impeachment of Bill Clinton, 2/2/99

 

"I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."

--Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), on the Fitzgerald investigation, Meet the Press, 10/23/05 

 

Kay Bailey Hutchison
Hutchison: Hypocriticus emeritus

1:40:01 PM    comment []

"Patrick Fitzgerald is really investigating a policy dispute."

--The Wall Street Journal

Yeah, and Watergate was "just a third-rate burglary". . .

 

Walker's World: Bush at Bay

By MARTIN WALKER
UPI Editor

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 (UPI) -- The CIA leak inquiry that threatens senior White House aides has now widened to include the forgery of documents on African uranium that started the investigation, according to NAT0 intelligence sources.

This suggests the inquiry by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald into the leaking of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame has now widened to embrace part of the broader question about the way the Iraq war was justified by the Bush administration.

Fitzgerald's inquiry is expected to conclude this week and despite feverish speculation in Washington, there have been no leaks about his decision whether to issue indictments and against whom and on what charges.

Two facts are, however, now known and between them they do not bode well for the deputy chief of staff at the White House, Karl Rove, President George W Bush's senior political aide, not for Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

The first is that Fitzgerald last year sought and obtained from the Justice Department permission to widen his investigation from the leak itself to the possibility of cover-ups, perjury and obstruction of justice by witnesses. This has renewed the old saying from the days of the Watergate scandal, that the cover-up can be more legally and politically dangerous than the crime.

The second is that NATO sources have confirmed to United Press International that Fitzgerald's team of investigators has sought and obtained documentation on the forgeries from the Italian government.

Fitzgerald's team has been given the full, and as yet unpublished report of the Italian parliamentary inquiry into the affair, which started when an Italian journalist obtained documents that appeared to show officials of the government of Niger helping to supply the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein with Yellowcake uranium. This claim, which made its way into President Bush's State of the Union address in January, 2003, was based on falsified documents from Niger and was later withdrawn by the White House.

This opens the door to what has always been the most serious implication of the CIA leak case, that the Bush administration could face a brutally damaging and public inquiry into the case for war against Iraq being false or artificially exaggerated. This was the same charge that imperiled the government of Bush's closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, after a BBC Radio program claimed Blair's aides has "sexed up" the evidence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

There can be few more serious charges against a government than going to war on false pretences, or having deliberately inflated or suppressed the evidence that justified the war.

And since no WMD were found in Iraq after the 2003 war, despite the evidence from the U.N. inspections of the 1990s that demonstrated that Saddam Hussein had initiated both a nuclear and a biological weapons program, the strongest plank in the Bush administration's case for war has crumbled beneath its feet.

The reply of both the Bush and Blair administrations was that they made their assertions about Iraq's WMD in good faith, and that other intelligence agencies like the French and German were equally mistaken in their belief that Iraq retained chemical weapons, along with the ambition and some of technological basis to restart the nuclear and biological programs.

It is this central issue of good faith that the CIA leak affair brings into question. The initial claims Iraq was seeking raw uranium in the west African state of Niger aroused the interest of vice-president Cheney, who asked for more investigation. At a meeting of CIA and other officials, a CIA officer working under cover in the office that dealt with nuclear proliferation, Valerie Plame, suggested her husband, James Wilson, a former ambassador to several African states, enjoyed good contacts in Niger and could make a preliminary inquiry. He did so, and returned concluding that the claims were untrue. In July 2003, he wrote an article for The New York Times making his mission -- and his disbelief -- public.

But by then Elisabetta Burba, a journalist for the Italian magazine Panorama (owned by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi) had been contacted by a "security consultant" named Rocco Martoni, offering to sell documents that "proved" Iraq was obtaining uranium in Niger for $10,000. Rather than pay the money, Burba's editor passed photocopies of the documents to the U.S. Embassy, which forwarded them to Washington, where the forgery was later detected. Signatures were false, and the government ministers and officials who had signed them were no longer in office on the dates on which the documents were supposedly written.

Nonetheless, the forged documents appeared, on the face of it, to shore up the case for war, and to discredit Wilson. The origin of the forgeries is therefore of real importance, and any link between the forgeries and Bush administration aides would be highly damaging and almost certainly criminal.

The letterheads and official seals that appeared to authenticate the documents apparently came from a burglary at the Niger Embassy in Rome in 2001. At this point, the facts start dribbling away into conspiracy theories that involve membership of shadowy Masonic lodges, Iranian go-betweens, right-wing cabals inside Italian Intelligence and so on. It is not yet known how far Fitzgerald, in his two years of inquiries, has fished in these murky waters.

There is one line of inquiry with an American connection that Fitzgerald would have found it difficult to ignore. This is the claim that a mid-ranking Pentagon official, Larry Franklin, held talks with some Italian intelligence and defense officials in Rome in late 2001. Franklin has since been arrested on charges of passing classified information to staff of the pro-Israel lobby group, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. Franklin has reportedly reached a plea bargain with his prosecutor, Paul McNulty, and it would be odd if McNulty and Fitzgerald had not conferred to see if their inquiries connected.

Where all this leads will not be clear until Fitzgerald breaks his silence, widely expected to occur this week when the term of his grand jury expires.

If Fitzgerald issues indictments, then the hounds that are currently baying across the blogosphere will leap into the mainstream media and whole affair, Iranian go-betweens and Rome burglaries included, will come into the mainstream of the mass media and network news where Mr. and Mrs. America can see it.

If Fitzgerald issues no indictments, the matter will not simply die away, in part because the press is now hotly engaged, after the new embarrassment of the Times over the imprisonment of the paper's Judith Miller. There is also an uncomfortable sense that the press had given the Bush administration too easy a ride after 9/11. And the Bush team is now on the ropes and its internal discipline breaking down, making it an easier target.

Then there is a separate Senate Select Intelligence Committee inquiry under way, and while the Republican chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas seems to be dragging his feet, the ranking Democrat, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, is now under growing Democratic Party pressure to pursue this question of falsifying the case for war.

And last week, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, introduced a resolution to require the president and secretary of state to furnish to Congress documents relating to the so-called White House Iraq Group. Chief of staff Andrew Card formed the WHIG task force in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion of Iraq, and Kucinich claims they were charged "with the mission of marketing a war in Iraq."

The group included: Rove, Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and Stephen Hadley (now Bush's national security adviser) and produced white papers that put into dramatic form the intelligence on Iraq's supposed nuclear threat. WHIG launched its media blitz in September 2002, six months before the war. Rice memorably spoke of the prospect of "a mushroom cloud," and Card revealingly explained why he chose September, saying "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

The marketing is over but the war goes on. The press is baying and the law closes in. The team of Bush loyalists in the White House is demoralized and braced for disaster.

 

Cast of Characters Grows in CIA Leak Drama

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press WriterMon Oct 24,12:29 AM ET

It began with a clumsy forgery, led the president to backtrack on his own State of the Union address, already has sent one person to jail and has ruined another's career as a covert operative.

The cast of characters in this latest tale of Washington intrigue — the CIA leak investigation — keeps growing as a federal prosecutor tries to sort out who told what to whom and whether any of it was a crime.

Those caught up in the maelstrom include a power couple with a big secret, a duo of no-longer-anonymous Bush administration officials and a constellation of media heavyweights with secrets, too. It runs the spectrum from the biggest of big fish, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, to the merest of minnows, White House functionaries.

MEET THE WILSONS

Up until three years ago, Joe and Valerie Wilson looked like just another upscale couple on the Washington scene, juggling serious jobs while keeping up with 2-year-old twins. He was a former ambassador turned international business consultant. She was an analyst for a Boston-based energy company — a working soccer mom, in the view of one of her neighbors.

As it turns out, Valerie really was a clandestine CIA agent and an expert on weapons of mass destruction, exactly the threat that Bush held out as the primary justification for going to war in Iraq. And, as it turns out, Joe's experience as an African envoy also made him a player.

CIA officials asked him to travel to Africa in February 2002 to check out a report that Niger sold uranium to Iraq in the late 1990s for use in nuclear weapons. Wilson quickly concluded the report was bogus. (Documents related to the purported sale later were exposed as a forgery.)

The unsubstantiated uranium deal surfaced again in Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. Six months later, Wilson went public in a big way with his accusations that the administration had twisted intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

Writing in The New York Times under the headline, "What I didn't Find in Africa," Wilson set off a firestorm that inevitably led to attacks on his credibility.

Six days after Wilson's article appeared, conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote that "two senior administration officials" had told him that Wilson's wife, identified by her maiden name as Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative who had suggested sending Wilson on the trip. The CIA denied Plame had suggested her husband for the job.

But in that instant, her career as a covert officer was over.

Then came the question that won't go away: Who outed Valerie Plame?

THE PROSECUTOR

It is Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's job to answer the question.

When Fitzgerald was tapped in December 2003 to lead the leak investigation, he was introduced at the Justice Department as "Eliot Ness with a Harvard law degree and a sense of humor." All humor aside, Fitzgerald, 45, is known as an aggressive prosecutor used to making people nervous. He also is known to be scrupulously fair.

He has been relentless in questioning everyone from Bush down to assistant press secretaries. As is often the case in the scandal-prone capital, his examination has expanded to look at whether any witnesses gave false testimony, mishandled classified information or obstructed justice.

The son of an Irish immigrant father who worked as a doorman in Brooklyn, N.Y., Fitzgerald joined the U.S. attorney's office in New York. He prosecuted terrorists in the 1993 bombings of the World Trade Center and the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa before taking his current job in 2001 — U.S. attorney in Chicago.

Even as he keeps official Washington on tenterhooks, Fitzgerald is probing allegations of payoffs and fraud at City Hall in Chicago, where some politicians would rather he'd just leave town for good. "I'm just going to do my job until the telephone rings and somebody tells me not to," he said in August.

CALL ME ANONYMOUS

Two of the most influential aides to Bush and Cheney now are known to have discussed Wilson's wife with reporters on condition of anonymity. But both aides say they were simply trading information that came from other reporters in gossipy Washington and reject any suggestion they were trying to punish Wilson for criticizing the president.

Presidential adviser Karl Rove is the mastermind behind Bush's two successful presidential campaigns. A White House aide with a bulging portfolio, Rove has been called before Fitzgerald's grand jury four times. Prosecutors have advised him that they no longer can assure he will escape indictment. Rove talked to at least two reporters about Wilson's wife.

Rove's history with the Bush family goes way back. In 1992, he was fired from the re-election campaign of the first President Bush on suspicion of leaking details of the campaign's Texas operation to none other than Novak.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff and foreign policy adviser, has been called before the grand jury at least once. Grand jury testimony shows he met three times with a New York Times reporter before the leak of Plame's identity, initiated a call to an NBC reporter and was a confirming source about Wilson's wife for Time magazine. In the latest twist, Rove has testified that it is possible that Libby was his source.

Who else might be under the microscope? Rove sent an e-mail to top national security aide Stephen Hadley discussing one of his conversations related to Wilson.

Wilson himself speculated last year that the leak might have come from Elliott Abrams, a figure in the Reagan administration Iran-Contra affair and now a member of Bush's National Security Council.

He said another possibility was that a lower-level official in Cheney's office — John Hannah or David Wurmser — leaked Plame's identity at the behest of higher-ups "to keep their fingerprints off the crime."

WHO KNEW?

It was Novak who first reported Plame's CIA connection, but other reporters also were talking with administration officials about Wilson and his wife.

The Times' Judith Miller went to jail for 85 days before sharing with the grand jury what she knew. After Libby personally assured her that he had waived her pledge of confidentiality, Miller told the grand jury about three conversations with him.

She said Libby was the first to suggest a CIA tie for Wilson's wife but did not reveal her name. She never wrote about the CIA connection because her focus was elsewhere.

Time reporter Matt Cooper went before the grand jury once and told of conversations with Rove and Libby. He said Rove indicated Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but didn't reveal her name or that her work was covert.

Libby confirmed Plame's CIA connection, again without giving her name or specifying her covert status. "Is any of this a crime?" Cooper wrote in a first-person account this summer. "Beats me."

Who else knew?

Last year, NBC's Tim Russert answered some of the prosecutor's questions about conversations he had with Libby. Libby told the grand jury he had heard about Wilson's wife from Russert, but Russert told authorities he did not know her identity until it was published and therefore couldn't have been Libby's source.

Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus answered investigators' questions about a conversation with an unidentified administration official. Under the arrangements for his testimony, Pincus did not identify the official to investigators, who already knew the official's identity.

Novak, for the record, says the leak about Plame first came to him as a "an offhand revelation" from an official who is "no partisan gunslinger." Novak apparently has cooperated with prosecutors, though neither he nor his lawyer has said so.

Are there other reporters who heard secrets they shouldn't have been told?

In September 2003, The Washington Post reported that White House officials had called at least six reporters and disclosed Plame's identity — so far, five names have surfaced.

BIG FISH:

Part of the fascination with the leak investigation revolves around what, if anything, Bush and Cheney knew about the leaks and when.

Fitzgerald is said to be investigating for possible Cheney involvement, in particular. Both the president and vice president have been questioned by investigators, although not under oath.

One important question is what Bush and Cheney might do if top aides like Rove or Libby are found to have been the leakers. Bush initially pledged to fire any leakers but later gave himself more wiggle room by promising to fire anyone who is found to have committed a crime.

In a way, the whole Wilson saga can be traced back to Cheney and Bush. It was Cheney's interest in the alleged Iraq-Niger deal that led the CIA to dispatch Wilson to Africa. And it Bush's use of the debunked claim in his State of the Union address that led Wilson to publish his doubts.

LITTLE FISH

Inevitably, some little fish get snagged in nets intended for bigger catch.

Count Adam Levine among them. The former White House press aide was called before the grand jury last year, mainly to answer questions about press office procedures. Investigators may have decided to question him simply because higher-ups in the press office were away during the week just prior to publication of Novak's column.


1:28:48 PM    comment []


Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2005 Michael D. Zungolo.
Last update: 11/1/2005; 8:22:56 AM.

October 2005
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Sep   Nov