Nov 19 2005
Fly By 11/19/05
The Washington Post runs an interesting editorial on Woodward, the press, confidential sources and the need to investigate crimes.
WE’VE SAID from the start of the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity that if administration officials deliberately set out to unmask a secret agent, they should be punished. But we’ve also said that, absent evidence of such behavior, criminalizing communication by officials to journalists would run counter to the public interest.
Emphasis mine. Fine – but admit there is no crime under the pertinent statute, and there are plenty of people who have come forward and said Plame’s CIA job was a well known secret in the DC media circles. And admit that when Novak called the CIA, they did not give the type of warning that Noval was accustomed to receiving over decades of reporting in Washington. In other words, admit the truth of this weak and misdirected investigation.
Much of the public finds the media’s extensive use of confidential sources objectionable, and understandably so. Their use should be as limited as possible. When they are relied upon, reporters should impart as much information as possible about the sources’ motives. Those guidelines are accepted but too often ignored by the press.
You mean like when the press never reminds the public Joe Wilson was on the Kerry campaign when he started this non-scandal? Ed Morrissey has more on this subject here.
I posted here on the GOP challenging Mad Murtha and his democrat surrender monkeys to either vote their desires (troop pull out) or their political survival (dump their anti-war base). The Washington Post review is here, but still misses the point – if it was an easy vote supporting the troops why was it a painful stunt? Which is it?
Differences over policy on the Iraq war ignited an explosion of angry words and personal insults on the House floor yesterday when the chamber’s newest member suggested that a decorated war veteran was a coward for calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.
As Democrats physically restrained one colleague, who appeared as if he might lose control of himself as he rushed across the aisle to confront Republicans with a jabbing finger, they accused Republicans of playing political games with the war.
Murtha has admirable characteristics and he was the model hero back in his day. But today he has been blubbering all over the troops as if they each and everyone need him as father protector. Yes, we all find life more and more precious the older we get, and we risk less and less than when in our youth. The problem is when this gets out of control and you start telling those in their prime to avoid taking any and all risks – and therefore make a difference in this world – because you have become so risk adverse.
And here is Jean Schmidt’s sage words from another Veteran war hero:
She told colleagues that “a few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp,” an Ohio legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer. “He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.”
Nothing wrong there. Better than Murtha calling the troops failures, part of the problem and incapable of winning. Murtha did surrender, he did give up and he can rightfully be called on it. Brian Maloney at Michelle’s has a good round up of round ups here.
But is is possible something else happened, the dems misplayed a PR stunt. This news is ‘breaking’ right now – which means it was meant to be part of the PR package coming out from the media and liberal wing of Congress:
The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.
Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades — usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each — begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.
The proposal comes as tension grows in both Washington and Baghdad following a call by a senior House Democrat to bring U.S. troops home and the deaths of scores of people by suicide bombers in two Iraqi cities.
Now I do not know if this is a rep leak, dem leak or extraordinary serendipity to be breaking this very day. But the dems misplayed their PR stunt and are crying foul for screwing themselves. They cannot again bring up the idea of withdraw ling without standard of success in Iraq after this one sided vote. Reading this it is clear the plan is a set of optional time tables depending on how the election goes and whether the insurgency dies down. Lori Byrd sees a PR game here as well.
But I find it ridiculous that the dems played politics with our troops in harms way. The left used misinformation, exaggeration and lies to try and win political points, and the media gladly carried their water for them. When a leftie calls for us to surrender – this and this is what we get.
If the lib/dems really want the troops home – then they need to stop calling for our surrender so the terrorists give up and Iraq can proceed into its democratic future under its own direction. We have had enough of the far left’s pathetic efforts to gain partisan advantage and, as a side affect, embolden more terrorist violence in Iraq.
The left has been warned enough times now. Every bombing is going to be on their shoulders for continuing the violence through their mixed signals in Congress and the Western news media.
There is a must read post on Blogger Jane of Armies of Liberation and her travels into the lions den of Al Jazeera to highlight the problems in Yemen:
Amazing, just amazing. The Yemeni governmental media is trashing my blog.
So I wrote an article (Y20) entitled Yemen’s Criminal Enterprise detailing the crimes of the Yemeni regime. (And the Yemeni newspaper, al-Thoury, was suspended for a week for publishing it.)
Then I was on al-Jazeera and spoke in my normal forthright manner about the situation in Yemen.
So now, every paper in Yemen is discussing the show. The governmental papers have the same normal spin: I’m an paid political operative but they cant decide for who for, so each paper says a different political party: the socialists, the PFU, the JMP. But its funny- since I’m talking about reform, now they are saying that anyone who is talking about reform is coordinating with me.
Amazing stuff. Yes, blogs can change the world.
Ed Morrissey has some disturbing news which folds into a post I did on Reuters and how it is hiding it’s head in the sand regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions: Ed post is on Iranian plans for ballistic missiles and warhead technology:
It looks like Iran had plans for the top of that new Shahab-3 rocket they have recently tested — the one that can pitch a warhead over 1200 miles. According to the Guardian (UK), the Iranians now admit they received plans for a nuclear warhead from the AQ Khan network:
And this is what I posted on regarding a Reuters’ article siting a error prone ‘WMD expert’:
This ‘rationale’ is proposed by someone who missed Saddam’s nuclear WMD intentions 15 years ago, and the logic is frighteningly shortsighted. It is a blatant attempt to grasp onto a severely narrow scenario to support the theory there is no threat from Iraq with regards to nuclear weapons.
It is a dangerous proposal because it can fool the uneducated, like a Reuters reporter, into believing this is a strong argument against Iran’s intent to build nuclear weapons. It is a laughable argument – but who could tell except us space cadets?
There is no need to engineer an RV if there is no nuclear warhead to put into it. None. Absolutely none. While nuclear weapons can exist without the RV – RV’s by themselves are a waste of engineering time without the warhead.
This kind of misguided media mistake is dangerous to all of us.
I was going to post on Depp’s Depression in France – but Wizbang did a better a job so check it out! Depp is just lost because everywhere he runs, reality comes crashing in. Yes Johnny, this is the real world at Hollywood is the illusion.
The Fly By is joining Don Surbers Open Thread for Saturday – let’s see how it goes!
“But I find it ridiculous that the dems played politics with our troops in harms way.”
You may find it “ridiculous” A. J., but do you find it SURPRISING? I do not.
Jean Schmidt Goes to WashingtonAugust 3, 2005 CINCINNATI, OHIO – Tomorrow Congresswoman-elect Jean Schmidt will fly to Washington, DC at 7:35am to meet with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and representatives of Congressman Ney’s House Administration Committee for a new member orientation session. Schmidt will also receive the keys to her new Congressional office, Cannon House Office Building, Room 238 at 1:00pm.
Welcome Jean-What took you so long to speak up? The current leadership should pay attention and listen to the new Congresswoman…. She has a spine and backbone! Thank You Jean for supporting our troops and welcome to Washington.
AJ,
Thanks for the recap this morning. You really do a great job and are always right on the mark !! The Democrats had their “Murtha Moment” and thank goodness the Republicans finally stepped up to the plate !!
I hate these politicians who want to run the war ….does the military try to pass laws ….NO !! The politicians need to keep their pants on and let the millitary finish the job. With the elections less than a month away I can’t believe these Democrats are having such a melt down ….maybe it shows how desperate they really are !!
Hoping for a peaceful Thanksgiving for our troops ….as many prayers go out for their safety !!
Thanks AJ !!
Over on The Christian Prophet blog the Holy Spirit came through with a message on Iraqi withdrawal. My sense is it was a teaching message. It asked who it was who lived by the slogan, “We shall overcome!”
LEAKS OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, CIA INFORMANTS HAVE A LONG HISTORY IN WASHINGTON States News Service October 2, 2003 Thursday
LENGTH: 1580 words
HEADLINE: LEAKS OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, CIA INFORMANTS HAVE A LONG HISTORY IN WASHINGTON
BYLINE: By Jim Geraghty States News Service
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
Eight years ago, a public official leaked the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency informant to the press, getting the informant’s name on the front page of the New York Times.
That official – then-Rep. Robert G. Torricelli — was merely rebuked by a House of Representatives panel, far from the “frog-marching in handcuffs” that former ambassador Joe Wilson, the figure at the center of the current controversy, feels is the proper punishment for whoever disclosed his wife’s employment at the CIA.
The recent controversy surrounding allegations that a White House official revealed the identity of a CIA employee is only the latest flap in the nation’s capital about unauthorized leaks of classified information.
In 1995, a U.S. State Department employee told Torricelli that a paid CIA informant, Guatemalan Col. Julio Roberto Alpirez, was involved in the killing of the husband of an American citizen.
Torricelli, then a Democratic Congressman from New Jersey and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, complained the CIA was doing nothing to uncover the facts of the case for the widow, Jennifer Harbury.
Alpirez’ identity and ties to the CIA were classified. In March 1995, Torricelli listed the colonel’s name and his connection to the CIA in a letter to President Clinton and gave a copy of the letter to The New York Times.
The House of Representatives’ ethics committee ruled several months later that Torricelli acted “contrary” to a House rule when he disclosed the classified information. But the panel said it would not punish Torricelli because of “ambiguity” in the rule.
Eventually, the House passed a rule requiring any member or staffer trying to gain access to classified information to sign a secrecy oath. Under the new rules, revealing information the way Torricelli did is forbidden.
The role of the CIA and Alpirez in the deaths in Nicaragua remained disputed. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a report concluding that “none of the allegations” originally raised by Torricelli were true, but Democrats on the panel said in a minority rebuttal that “this categorical assertion is not supported by the evidence.”
However, the Democrats did not dispute the part of the report criticizing Torricelli for revealing the information. The Intelligence Committee review stated that the CIA had provided “evidence that the disclosures concerning Guatemala have resulted in the loss of some contacts around the world, who feared their relationship with the United States would be disclosed as well.”
The State Department aide who gave the information to Torricelli, Richard Nuccio, was stripped of his security clearance by then-CIA Director John Deutch.
The intelligence report also offered a rebuke of Nuccio. The report noted that a separate investigation by the State Department Inspector General found that besides passing the information to Torricelli, Nuccio “may have also provided classified information to members of the press, and had prepared classified documents on his home computer that he then telecopied over unsecure telephone lines.”
Nuccio went on to work for Torricelli as a senior foreign policy advisor. He later worked for the United Nations, RAND Corp., and the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy at Salve Regina University
Ironically, the CIA director who disciplined Nuccio, John Deutch, was also disciplined for not protecting classified information.
George Tenet, Deutch’s successor as CIA director, announced in August 1999 that he had stripped Deutch of his security clearance because he kept classified documents on ordinary home computers that were not protected by locks, encryption or other security devices.
It was later revealed that Deutch kept a Pentagon security clearance until February 2000 that allowed him to work as a paid consultant on classified Defense Department contracts with Raytheon Corp., SAIC Corp. and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Perhaps one of the most damaging leaks came on August 21, 1998, when Martin Sieff of the Washington Times wrote a front-page profile of terrorist Osama bin Laden. Sieff wrote that the notorious terrorist “keeps in touch with the world via computers and satellite phones and has given occasional interviews to international news organizations, including Time magazine and CNN News.”
That article tipped bin Laden to the National Security Agency’s interceptions of his satellite phone conversations. He then switched to more sophisticated phone systems, according to intelligence officials.
“You open up the newspaper, see something like that and ask, ‘What the hell is going on? Who on earth put that out?'” said Daniel Benjamin, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former director for transnational threats on the National Security Council.
In his 2002 book about the rise of al-Qaeda, “The Age of Sacred Terror,” Benjamin said that, “when bin Laden stopped using the phone and let his aides do the calling, the United States lost its best chance to find him.”
The security of classified information has been a paramount issue since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The day of the attacks, Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, told the Associated Press that intelligence agencies “have an intercept of some information that includes people associated with bin Laden who acknowledged a couple of targets were hit.”
He made similar comments to ABC News and said the information had come from officials at the CIA and FBI. That stirred a strong rebuke from White House officials.
“Well, that helps a lot! [Expletive]!” one administration official told the Chicago Tribune.
An October 22, 2001 article in The New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hersh began with a reader-grabbing revelation: “Since 1994 or earlier, the National Security Agency has been collecting electronic intercepts of conversations between members of the Saudi Arabian royal family, which is headed by King Fahd… The intercepts have demonstrated to analysts that by 1996 Saudi money was supporting Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and other extremist groups in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Yemen, and Central Asia, and throughout the Persian Gulf region.” According to former intelligence officials, that leak was investigated within the NSA.
In November 2001, President Bush accused unnamed lawmakers of leaking secrets last week to the news media. He ordered that briefings involving sensitive information to be limited to only eight top members of Congress, before changing his mind the following day.
Bush’s was outraged by a Washington Post report on a classified briefing, in which intelligence officials were quoted as telling lawmakers there was a “100 percent likelihood of further terrorist strikes.” According to some senators, there was much more sensitive information leaked to the Post that the newspaper decided not to run.
Then, in summer 2002, the leaders of the Senate and House intelligence panels called in the FBI to investigate after Vice President Dick Cheney complained to them about another leak.
National Security Agency director, Lt. General Michael Hayden, had testified to a joint House-Senate panel about highly classified radio intercepts of two messages that hinted at impending action by al-Qaeda terrorists shortly before Sept. 11. The messages, originally in Arabic, were not translated until after the attacks occurred. One day after Hayden’s appearance before the joint panel, CNN aired a report on his testimony.
The FBI investigation did not result in any arrests.
Benjamin said that despite Torricelli, Hatch, and Bush’s public criticism of Congress, the White House and the agencies it oversees generate plenty leaks of their own.
“I think the executive branch has a lot more to answer for, by and large,” Benjamin said. “And it’s not just political appointees but some of the civil servants, people who actually work for the intelligence agencies. [Washington Times reporter] Bill Gertz blows more classified information in his reporting that he gets from sources in the intelligence community than most other reporters I can think of.”
The CIA has repeatedly stated that press leaks can have a serious impact on national security. On June 14 of last year, the agency circulated a memo to top government officials warning them against leaks that it says have “jeopardized” U.S. intelligence capabilities.
“Information obtained from captured detainees has revealed that al-Qaeda operatives are extremely security-conscious and have altered their practices in response to what they have learned from the press about our capabilities,” the memo stated. “A growing body of reporting indicates that al-Qaeda planners have learned much about our counter-terrorist intelligence capabilities from U.S. and foreign media.”
The memo also stated that every public disclosure of classified information erodes trust in U.S. intelligence and “reduce the willingness of potential allies, volunteers and sources in foreign countries to work with us out of fear of having their cooperation publicized in the press.”
The CIA can polygraph its employees in its leak investigations and has in the past, according to intelligence officials. On Wednesday, the White House White House spokesman Scott McClellan indicated executive staffers would submit to polygraph tests during the investigation if the Justice Department requested it.
SBD