Friday, June 03, 2005

MONKEY BUSINESS

nypress.com
MONKEY BUSINESS
Everybody always talks about religious conservatives, but nobody ever
does anything about them.

By Matt Taibbi

The topic for my column this week is religious conservatives. There
are a few reasons for this. The 80th anniversary of the Scopes Monkey
trial is approaching, for one. For another, the city of Dover,
Pennsylvania, has just approved the teaching of "intelligent
design"—the latest semantic end-around for use in questioning
Darwinism. But the real reason to talk about religious conservatives
is because the last few months have been something of a coming-out
party for them as a mainstream political force.

Beginning with the Terri Schiavo affair, and continuing most pointedly
with the latest fight against the filibuster, what we have seen lately
is something new: the congressional leaders of the ruling political
party (Tom Delay, Bill Frist) signing on with the more extreme
representatives of the evangelical movement to push highly dubious and
eccentric political objectives. The presence of such people as James
Dobson and Al Mohler side by side with leading congressional
Republicans has even led some respected political commentators to
wonder aloud if a schism is developing within the Republican party, if
the fiscal conservatives who have long been stomped on in the Bush
years are finally going to start wondering what payoff they're getting
for their political support. Even Andrew Sullivan, that foul whore of
right-wing commentary, admitted as much recently in the New Republic.
"Conservatism isn't over," he wrote. "But it has rarely been as
confused."

All of this talk has led to false hope among progressives, who think
they see an opening in the Republicans' apparent strategic error in
backing fundamentalist causes.


The decision by Tom Delay to jump in
bed with the snake-handlers in the Terri Schiavo case—when polls
showed that even a majority of evangelicals opposed him—seemed to
indicate a rare suspension of electoral judgment by his party. There
is a feeling among the pointy-headed secular set that the evangelicals
are a doomed anachronism who will die out with increased exposure to
the open air, and that hitching a political wagon to their causes must
result in failure.

This idea was put most explicitly by Tom Junod in Esquire a few months
back, when he wrote: "Whether the issue is Internet porn or stem-cell
research, what conservatives are up against is not Blue-State America,
or liberal America, or secular America, or decadent America, or
enlightened America. It's not even, as some have suggested, the
Enlightenment itself. It's technology, and it's time."

This is a common belief among the overeducated east coast set. It is
also exactly what H.L. Mencken believed 80 years ago, when he filed
what he thought was the obituary of American yahoo-ism from Dayton,
Tennessee. He concluded from the Scopes trial: "On the one side was
bigotry, ignorance, hatred, superstition, every sort of blackness that
the human mind is capable of. And on the other side was sense. And
sense achieved a great victory."

Little did Mencken know that 80 years after Dayton, the supporters of
William Jennings Bryan's point of view would still outnumber the
supporters of Clarence Darrow's opinion by a ratio of about five to
one; not just in Tennessee, but in the country at large. Polls on the
issue have been remarkably consistent for decades. A New York Times
survey last year showed that 55 percent of Americans believed that
"God created us in our present form," while only 13 percent believed
that "we evolved from less-advanced life-forms over millions of years,
and God did not directly guide this process." A similar Gallup poll in
1997 placed those numbers at 44-10; in 1991, the numbers were 47-9.

Progressives in this country have always maintained a kind of fuzzy
belief that fundamentalists will eventually just disappear, as if by
magic, that the phenomenon of grown men and women believing in devils
and witches and angels will inevitably be outgrown, the way children
outgrow Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Marx. When some pastor in
rural Alabama takes the pulpit to denounce SpongeBob Squarepants as
the agent of the Evil One, we figure no response is really
necessary—folks will figure out the joke on their own, somewhere down
the line.

Because of this, nothing like an organized resistance to this
buffoonery has ever taken root in America. Though fundamentalists
themselves imagine their secular opponents as a great and unified
conspiracy, in truth the only weapons trained on Christians in this
country are the occasional lawsuit by the ACLU (a group which normally
opposes not religion itself, as I would prefer, but some ostensibly
unconstitutional intrusion of religion into the public sphere) and the
sarcastic barbs of ineffectual heathen media figures like Maureen Dowd
and Jon Stewart.

Our pornographic pop culture, seen by religious conservatives as a
coordinated, premeditated military offensive against Christian values,
is as indifferent to Christianity as it is to environmentalism. It is
not a true opponent of fundamentalist Christianity, because it doesn't
give a shit about fundamentalist Christianity—or about anything else
for that matter, except ratings and sales.

What organized political resistance fundamentalists do encounter comes
in the form of groups that oppose their political objectives, not
Christianity itself. Even pro-choice groups like NARAL, which come
into direct and often violent contact with Christians, restrict
themselves to agitation for abortion rights, and leave the issue of
their opponents' religion alone. In general, there is almost no public
figure, anywhere, who has ever suggested publicly that fundamentalist
Christianity, as a thing-in-itself, should be opposed. The strongest
suggestion most critics will make is to say that it should be
contained, and indeed that seems to be the best-case strategy of
progressives: that the God-fearing set can be boxed in, kept from
being a nuisance and from meddling in areas where they don't belong,
just long enough for them to eventually die out of natural causes.

This is a mistake, and it is the same mistake people have made for
centuries: underestimating the American zeal for superstition, for
boobism, for living the intellectual lives of farm animals. A large
statistical majority of Americans would rather live their whole lives
in perpetual fear of the devil than listen to ten minutes of common
sense. When you consider where these people live intellectually, the
idea that the Democratic Party can somehow succeed in Middle America
by making small tactical changes, by waving a few more flags, seems
absurd. You either believe in the devil or you don't; and if you
don't, you're never going to fool these people. The Republicans, for
all their seeming "confusion," understand this now better than ever.
Their seemingly open attempts in recent months to radicalize and
embolden their evangelical base may have had a temporary desultory
effect with regard to their poll numbers.

But this current crew of Republican strategists has always understood
American thinking better than the Tom Junods of the world. They know
that most political trends are fleeting. Liberalism vanished at the
first sign of trouble; pacifism disappeared one generation after
Vietnam; even fiscal conservatism is easily forgotten. The one thing
that never disappears in this country is stupidity, and if you court
it, you'll always have votes down the line. Especially when it lives
on unopposed.

Read More...

Thursday, June 02, 2005

Intimidated by extremists

The International Herald Tribune

Intimidated by extremists
Frida Ghitis

ATLANTA One day, when historians study this first major war of the 21st century, they will scratch their heads in disbelief, wondering how it came to pass that Muslim extremists managed to intimidate moderates of every religion - including Islam - on every continent on earth.

The whole planet, it seems, twisted itself into knots trying to untangle the forces at work behind the retracted Newsweek story about desecration of the Koran. Journalistic practices came under attack, while experts on Islam tried to soothe the less erudite, not quite justifying, but more than thoroughly explaining why desecration of the Holy Book leads to mob rampage and murder in a Muslim society.

No question, insulting any religion is beyond reprehensible. It appears, however, that nothing is more reprehensible than insulting the Muslim religion. And the extremists now decide what constitutes an insult.


In Pakistan, a Muslim nation whose president Muslim extremists have twice tried to assassinate, Islamists have decided that women's sports constitute a grievous offense to Islam. Some women, it turns out, find the idea of using Islam to repress them itself quite offensive. So, when the government of President Pervez Musharraf, which lately bends to the will of extremists, placed bans on women's rights, women decided to stage a protest

A leading Pakistani human rights activist, Asma Jahangir, was brutally attacked by the police during the peaceful demonstration. Participants in the "mini-marathon," a kind of sports event/political protest, came under violent police assault. This from a key U.S. ally, a government presumably fighting to defeat Islamist extremists. A fine way to strengthen the moderates!

And speaking of moderates, and of respect for religion, consider the official sermon on Palestinian Authority television, which is financed largely by the contributions of democratic countries in the West, shown to viewers on May 13. Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris explained that "the Jews are a virus resembling AIDS." This man of God told the faithful that "the stones and the trees will want every Muslim to finish off every Jew," and he predicted that "the day will come when we (Muslims) will rule the entire world again."

With the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, on his way to the United States, the authority did not want such notions to dominate the headlines, so it took a stand against the imam. But this kind of rhetoric by religious figures goes unchallenged every day in much of the Middle East, including so-called moderate countries friendly to Washington.

Even in Africa, moderate governments behave timidly before mob-stoking Islamists. Muslim radicals in Nigeria a few years ago whipped the masses into a murderous frenzy days before the scheduled Miss World Pageant, all because a newspaper columnist speculated, tongue in cheek, that the Prophet Muhammad might have taken the winning contestant as his wife.

Frenzied Muslims killed 220 Nigerians to defend Islam from such an insult. Nigeria's moderate president accused the media of insensitivity and blamed the riots on "irresponsible" journalists. We can add the 220 to the hundreds who have died in protests against other affronts to symbols of Islam.

While Muslim moderates get swept away by the tide of extremism, unprotected by so-called moderate governments, the rest of the world frets in well-intentioned angst. Moderates everywhere now seem terrified of making missteps that might upset the extremists, while they obsess over the question, "What can we do to avoid offending Muslims?" Standing Pentagon orders instruct those touching the Koran that "clean gloves will be put on" and that "two hands will be used at all times."

Let me say it again: Disrespecting the Koran or Islam or any other religion is contemptible behavior. If American soldiers do it, it is particularly egregious because the United States self-righteously argues for more tolerance in the Muslim world. But tolerance must be demanded from all sides.

The views and life choices of moderate Muslims must be respected, as must those of people of all religions, by members of all religions. The demands fall on Muslims, too. And the requirement of standing up against intolerance falls on all governments. Only intolerance is undeserving of tolerance.

(Frida Ghitis is the author of "The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television." )

originally published JUNE 1, 2005

Read More...

How Mark Felt Became 'Deep Throat'

washingtonpost.com
How Mark Felt Became 'Deep Throat'
As a Friendship -- and the Watergate Story -- Developed, Source's Motives Remained a Mystery to Woodward

By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer

In 1970, when I was serving as a lieutenant in the U.S. Navy and assigned to Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, the chief of naval operations, I sometimes acted as a courier, taking documents to the White House.

One evening I was dispatched with a package to the lower level of the West Wing of the White House, where there was a little waiting area near the Situation Room. It could be a long wait for the right person to come out and sign for the material, sometimes an hour or more, and after I had been waiting for a while a tall man with perfectly combed gray hair came in and sat down near me. His suit was dark, his shirt white and his necktie subdued. He was probably 25 to 30 years older than I and was carrying what looked like a file case or briefcase. He was very distinguished-looking and had a studied air of confidence, the posture and calm of someone used to giving orders and having them obeyed instantly.

I could tell he was watching the situation very carefully. There was nothing overbearing in his attentiveness, but his eyes were darting about in a kind of gentlemanly surveillance. After several minutes, I introduced myself. "Lieutenant Bob Woodward," I said, carefully appending a deferential "sir."

"Mark Felt," he said.


I began telling him about myself, that this was my last year in the Navy and I was bringing documents from Adm. Moorer's office. Felt was in no hurry to explain anything about himself or why he was there.

This was a time in my life of considerable anxiety, even consternation, about my future. I had graduated in 1965 from Yale, where I had a Naval Reserve Officers' Training Corps scholarship that required that I go into the Navy after getting my degree. After four years of service, I had been involuntarily extended an additional year because of the Vietnam War.

During that year in Washington, I expended a great deal of energy trying to find things or people who were interesting. I had a college classmate who was going to clerk for Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, and I made an effort to develop a friendship with that classmate. To quell my angst and sense of drift, I was taking graduate courses at George Washington University. One course was in Shakespeare, another in international relations.

When I mentioned the graduate work to Felt, he perked up immediately, saying he had gone to night law school at GW in the 1930s before joining -- and this is the first time he mentioned it -- the FBI. While in law school, he said, he had worked full time for a senator -- his home-state senator from Idaho. I said that I had been doing some volunteer work at the office of my congressman, John Erlenborn, a Republican from the district in Wheaton, Ill., where I had been raised.

So we had two connections -- graduate work at GW and work with elected representatives from our home states.

Felt and I were like two passengers sitting next to each other on a long airline flight with nowhere to go and nothing really to do but resign ourselves to the dead time. He showed no interest in striking up a long conversation, but I was intent on it. I finally extracted from him the information that he was an assistant director of the FBI in charge of the inspection division, an important post under Director J. Edgar Hoover. That meant he led teams of agents who went around to FBI field offices to make sure they were adhering to procedures and carrying out Hoover's orders. I later learned that this was called the "goon squad."

Here was someone at the center of the secret world I was only glimpsing in my Navy assignment, so I peppered him with questions about his job and his world. As I think back on this accidental but crucial encounter -- one of the most important in my life -- I see that my patter probably verged on the adolescent. Since he wasn't saying much about himself, I turned it into a career-counseling session.

I was deferential, but I must have seemed very needy. He was friendly, and his interest in me seemed somehow paternal. Still the most vivid impression I have is that of his distant but formal manner, in most ways a product of Hoover's FBI. I asked Felt for his phone number, and he gave me the direct line to his office.

I believe I encountered him only one more time at the White House. But I had set the hook. He was going to be one of the people I consulted in depth about my future, which now loomed more ominously as the date of my discharge from the Navy approached. At some point I called him, first at the FBI and then at his home in Virginia. I was a little desperate, and I'm sure I poured out my heart. I had applied to several law schools for that fall, but, at 27, I wondered if I could really stand spending three years in law school before starting real work.

Felt seemed sympathetic to the lost-soul quality of my questions. He said that after he had his law degree his first job had been with the Federal Trade Commission. His first assignment was to determine whether toilet paper with the brand name Red Cross was at an unfair competitive advantage because people thought it was endorsed or approved by the American Red Cross. The FTC was a classic federal bureaucracy -- slow and leaden -- and he hated it. Within a year he had applied to the FBI and been accepted. Law school opened the most doors, he seemed to be saying, but don't get caught in your own equivalent of a toilet-paper investigation.
A TWO WEEK TRYOUT: Coming to The Post

In August 1970, I was formally discharged from the Navy. I had subscribed to The Washington Post, which I knew was led by a colorful, hard-charging editor named Ben Bradlee. There was a toughness and edge to the news coverage that I liked; it seemed to fit the times, to fit with a general sense of where the world was much more than law school. Maybe reporting was something I could do.

During my scramble and search for a future, I had sent a letter to The Post asking for a job as a reporter. Somehow -- I don't remember exactly how -- Harry Rosenfeld, the metropolitan editor, agreed to see me. He stared at me through his glasses in some bewilderment. Why, he wondered, would I want to be a reporter? I had zero -- zero! -- experience. Why, he said, would The Washington Post want to hire someone with no experience? But this is just crazy enough, Rosenfeld finally said, that we ought to try it. We'll give you a two-week tryout.

After two weeks, I had written perhaps a dozen stories or fragments of stories. None had been published or come close to being published. None had even been edited.

See, you don't know how to do this, Rosenfeld said, bringing my tryout to a merciful close. But I left the newsroom more enthralled than ever. Though I had failed the tryout -- it was a spectacular crash -- I realized I had found something that I loved. The sense of immediacy in the newspaper was overwhelming to me, and I took a job at the Montgomery Sentinel, where Rosenfeld said I could learn how to be a reporter. I told my father that law school was off and that I was taking a job, at about $115 a week, as a reporter at a weekly newspaper in Maryland.

"You're crazy," my father said, in one of the rare judgmental statements he had ever made to me.

I also called Mark Felt, who, in a gentler way, indicated that he, too, thought this was crazy. He said he thought newspapers were too shallow and too quick on the draw. Newspapers didn't do in-depth work and rarely got to the bottom of events.

Well, I said, I was elated. Maybe he could help me with stories.

He didn't answer, I recall.

During the year I spent on the Sentinel, I kept in touch with Felt through phone calls to his office and home. We were becoming friends of a sort. He was the mentor, keeping me from toilet-paper investigations, and I kept asking for advice. One weekend I drove out to his home in Virginia and met his wife, Audrey.

Somewhat to my astonishment, Felt was an admirer of J. Edgar Hoover. He appreciated his orderliness and the way he ran the bureau with rigid procedures and an iron fist. Felt said he appreciated that Hoover arrived at the office at 6:30 each morning and everyone knew what was expected. The Nixon White House was another matter, Felt said. The political pressures were immense, he said without being specific. I believe he called it "corrupt" and sinister. Hoover, Felt and the old guard were the wall that protected the FBI, he said.

In his own memoir, "The FBI Pyramid: From the Inside," which received almost no attention when it was published in 1979, five years after President Richard M. Nixon's resignation, Felt angrily called this a "White House-Justice Department cabal."

At the time, pre-Watergate, there was little or no public knowledge of the vast pushing, shoving and outright acrimony between the Nixon White House and Hoover's FBI. The Watergate investigations later revealed that in 1970 a young White House aide named Tom Charles Huston had come up with a plan to authorize the CIA, the FBI and military intelligence units to intensify electronic surveillance of "domestic security threats," authorize illegal opening of mail, and lift the restrictions on surreptitious entries or break-ins to gather intelligence.

Huston warned in a top-secret memo that the plan was "clearly illegal." Nixon initially approved the plan anyway. Hoover strenuously objected, because eavesdropping, opening mail and breaking into homes and offices of domestic security threats were basically the FBI bailiwick and the bureau didn't want competition. Four days later, Nixon rescinded the Huston plan.

Felt, a much more learned man than most realized, later wrote that he considered Huston "a kind of White House gauleiter over the intelligence community." The word "gauleiter" is not in most dictionaries, but in the four-inch-thick Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language it is defined as "the leader or chief official of a political district under Nazi control."

There is little doubt Felt thought the Nixon team were Nazis. During this period, he had to stop efforts by others in the bureau to "identify every member of every hippie commune" in the Los Angeles area, for example, or to open a file on every member of Students for a Democratic Society.

None of this surfaced directly in our discussions, but clearly he was a man under pressure, and the threat to the integrity and independence of the bureau was real and seemed uppermost in his mind.

On July 1, 1971 -- about a year before Hoover's death and the Watergate break-in -- Hoover promoted Felt to be the number three official in the FBI. Though Hoover's sidekick, Clyde Tolson, was technically the number two official, Tolson was also ill and did not come to work many days, meaning he had no operational control of the bureau. Thus, my friend became the day-to-day manager of all FBI matters as long as he kept Hoover and Tolson informed or sought Hoover's approval on policy matters.
EARLY TIPS: Agnew, and Then Wallace

In August, a year after my failed tryout, Rosenfeld decided to hire me. I started at The Post the next month.

Though I was busy in my new job, I kept Felt on my call list and checked in with him. He was relatively free with me but insisted that he, the FBI and the Justice Department be kept out of anything I might use indirectly or pass onto others. He was stern and strict about those rules with a booming, insistent voice. I promised, and he said that it was essential that I be careful. The only way to ensure that was to tell no one that we knew each other or talked or that I knew someone in the FBI or Justice Department. No one.

In the spring, he said in utter confidence that the FBI had some information that Vice President Spiro T. Agnew had received a bribe of $2,500 in cash that Agnew had put in his desk drawer. I passed this on to Richard Cohen, the top Maryland reporter for The Post, not identifying the source at all. Cohen said, and later wrote in his book on the Agnew investigation, that he thought it was "preposterous." Another Post reporter and I spent a day chasing around Baltimore for the alleged person who supposedly knew about the bribe. We got nowhere. Two years later, the Agnew investigation revealed that the vice president had received such a bribe in his office.

About 9:45 a.m. on May 2, 1972, Felt was in his office at the FBI when an assistant director came to report that Hoover had died at his home. Felt was stunned. For practical purposes, he was next in line to take over the bureau.

Yet Felt was soon to be visited with immense disappointment. Nixon nominated L. Patrick Gray III to be the acting director. Gray was a Nixon loyalist going back years. He had resigned from the Navy in 1960 to work for candidate Nixon during the presidential contest that Nixon lost to John F. Kennedy.

As best I could tell Felt was crushed, but he put on a good face. "Had I been wiser, I would have retired," Felt wrote.

On May 15, less than two weeks after Hoover's death, a lone gunman shot Alabama Gov. George C. Wallace, then campaigning for president, at a Laurel shopping center. The wounds were serious, but Wallace survived.

Wallace had a strong following in the deep South, an increasing source of Nixon's support. Wallace's spoiler candidacy four years earlier in 1968 could have cost Nixon the election that year, and Nixon monitored Wallace's every move closely as the 1972 presidential contest continued.

That evening, Nixon called Felt -- not Gray, who was out of town -- at home for an update. It was the first time Felt had spoken directly with Nixon. Felt reported that Arthur H. Bremer, the would-be assassin, was in custody but in the hospital because he had been roughed up and given a few bruises by those who subdued and captured him after he shot Wallace.

"Well, it's too bad they didn't really rough up the son of a bitch!" Nixon told Felt.

Felt was offended that the president would make such a remark. Nixon was so agitated and worried, attaching such urgency to the shooting, that he said he wanted full updates every 30 minutes from Felt on any new information that was being discovered in the investigation of Bremer.

In the following days I called Felt several times and he very carefully gave me leads as we tried to find out more about Bremer. It turned out that he had stalked some of the other candidates, and I went to New York to pick up the trail. This led to several front-page stories about Bremer's travels, completing a portrait of a madman not singling out Wallace but rather looking for any presidential candidate to shoot. On May 18, I did a Page One article that said, among other things, "High federal officials who have reviewed investigative reports on the Wallace shooting said yesterday that there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Bremer was a hired killer."

It was rather brazen of me. Though I was technically protecting my source and talked to others besides Felt, I did not do a good job of concealing where the information was coming from. Felt chastised me mildly. But the story that Bremer acted alone and without accomplices was a story that both the White House and the FBI wanted out.
THE STORY BREAKS: Secrecy Is Paramount

A month later, on Saturday, June 17, the FBI night supervisor called Felt at home. Five men in business suits, pockets stuffed with $100 bills, and carrying eavesdropping and photographic equipment, had been arrested inside the Democrats' national headquarters at the Watergate office building about 2:30 a.m.

By 8:30 a.m. Felt was in his office at the FBI, seeking more details. About the same time, The Post's city editor woke me at home and asked me to come in to cover an unusual burglary.

The first paragraph of the front-page story that ran the next day in The Post read: "Five men, one of whom said he is a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, were arrested at 2:30 a.m. yesterday in what authorities described as an elaborate plot to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee here."

The next day, Carl Bernstein and I wrote our first article together, identifying one of the burglars, James W. McCord Jr., as the salaried security coordinator for Nixon's reelection committee. On Monday, I went to work on E. Howard Hunt, whose telephone number had been found in the address books of two of the burglars with the small notations "W. House" and "W.H." by his name.

This was the moment when a source or friend in the investigative agencies of government is invaluable. I called Felt at the FBI, reaching him through his secretary. It would be our first talk about Watergate. He reminded me how he disliked phone calls at the office but said the Watergate burglary case was going to "heat up" for reasons he could not explain. He then hung up abruptly.

I was tentatively assigned to write the next day's Watergate bugging story, but I was not sure I had anything. Carl had the day off. I picked up the phone and dialed 456-1414 -- the White House -- and asked for Howard Hunt. There was no answer, but the operator helpfully said he might be in the office of Charles W. Colson, Nixon's special counsel. Colson's secretary said Hunt was not there this moment but might be at a public relations firm where he worked as a writer. I called and reached Hunt and asked why his name was in the address book of two of the Watergate burglars.

"Good God!" Hunt shouted before slamming down the phone. I called the president of the public relations firm, Robert F. Bennett, who is now a Republican U.S. senator from Utah. "I guess it's no secret that Howard was with the CIA," Bennett said blandly.

It had been a secret to me, and a CIA spokesman confirmed that Hunt had been with the agency from 1949 to 1970. I called Felt again at the FBI. Colson, White House, CIA, I said. What did I have? Anyone could have someone's name in an address book. I wanted to be careful about guilt by association.

Felt sounded nervous. He said off the record -- meaning I could not use the information -- that Hunt was a prime suspect in the burglary at the Watergate for many reasons beyond the address books. So reporting the connections forcefully would not be unfair.

In July, Carl went to Miami, home of four of the burglars, on the money trail, and he ingeniously tracked down a local prosecutor and his chief investigator, who had copies of $89,000 in Mexican checks and a $25,000 check that had gone into the account of Bernard L. Barker, one of the burglars. We were able to establish that the $25,000 check had been campaign money that had been given to Maurice H. Stans, Nixon's chief fundraiser, on a Florida golf course. The Aug. 1 story on this was the first to tie Nixon campaign money directly to Watergate.

I tried to call Felt, but he wouldn't take the call. I tried his home in Virginia and had no better luck. So one night I showed up at his Fairfax home. It was a plain-vanilla, perfectly kept, everything-in-its-place suburban house. His manner made me nervous. He said no more phone calls, no more visits to his home, nothing in the open.

I did not know then that in Felt's earliest days in the FBI, during World War II, he had been assigned to work on the general desk of the Espionage Section. Felt learned a great deal about German spying in the job, and after the war he spent time keeping suspected Soviet agents under surveillance.

So at his home in Virginia that summer, Felt said that if we were to talk it would have to be face to face where no one could observe us.

I said anything would be fine with me.

We would need a preplanned notification system -- a change in the environment that no one else would notice or attach any meaning to. I didn't know what he was talking about.

If you keep the drapes in your apartment closed, open them and that could signal me, he said. I could check each day or have them checked, and if they were open we could meet that night at a designated place. I liked to let the light in at times, I explained.

We needed another signal, he said, indicating that he could check my apartment regularly. He never explained how he could do this.

Feeling under some pressure, I said that I had a red cloth flag, less than a foot square -- the kind used as warnings on long truck loads -- that a girlfriend had found on the street. She had stuck it in an empty flowerpot on my apartment balcony.

Felt and I agreed that I would move the flowerpot with the flag, which usually was in the front near the railing, to the rear of the balcony if I urgently needed a meeting. This would have to be important and rare, he said sternly. The signal, he said, would mean we would meet that same night about 2 a.m. on the bottom level of an underground garage just over the Key Bridge in Rosslyn.

Felt said I would have to follow strict countersurveillance techniques. How did I get out of my apartment?

I walked out, down the hall, and took the elevator.

Which takes you to the lobby? he asked.

Yes.

Did I have back stairs to my apartment house?

Yes.

Use them when you are heading for a meeting. Do they open into an alley?

Yes.

Take the alley. Don't use your own car. Take a taxi to several blocks from a hotel where there are cabs after midnight, get dropped off and then walk to get a second cab to Rosslyn. Don't get dropped off directly at the parking garage. Walk the last several blocks. If you are being followed, don't go down to the garage. I'll understand if you don't show. All this was like a lecture. The key was taking the necessary time -- one to two hours to get there. Be patient, serene. Trust the prearrangements. There was no fallback meeting place or time. If we both didn't show, there would be no meeting.

Felt said that if he had something for me, he could get me a message. He quizzed me about my daily routine, what came to my apartment, the mailbox, etc. The Post was delivered outside my apartment door. I did have a subscription to the New York Times. A number of people in my apartment building near Dupont Circle got the Times. The copies were left in the lobby with the apartment number. Mine was No. 617, and it was written clearly on the outside of each paper in marker pen. Felt said if there was something important he could get to my New York Times -- how, I never knew. Page 20 would be circled, and the hands of a clock in the lower part of the page would be drawn to indicate the time of the meeting that night, probably 2 a.m., in the same Rosslyn parking garage.

The relationship was a compact of trust; nothing about it was to be discussed or shared with anyone, he said.

How he could have made a daily observation of my balcony is still a mystery to me. At the time, before the era of intensive security, the back of the building was not enclosed, so anyone could have driven in the back alley to observe my balcony. In addition, my balcony and the back of the apartment complex faced onto a courtyard or back area that was shared with a number of other apartment or office buildings in the area. My balcony could have been seen from dozens of apartments or offices, as best I can tell.

A number of embassies were located in the area. The Iraqi Embassy was down the street, and I thought it possible that the FBI had surveillance or listening posts nearby. Could Felt have had the counterintelligence agents regularly report on the status of my flag and flowerpot? That seems highly unlikely, if not impossible.
A KINSHIP: Felt Knew Reporters' Plight

In the course of this and other discussions, I was somewhat apologetic for plaguing him and being such a nag, but I explained that we had nowhere else to turn. Carl and I had obtained a list of everyone who worked for Nixon's reelection committee and were frequently going out into the night knocking on the doors of these people to try to interview them. I explained to Felt that we were getting lots of doors slammed in our faces. There also were lots of frightened looks. I was frustrated.

Felt said I should not worry about pushing him. He had done his time as a street agent, interviewing people. The FBI, like the press, had to rely on voluntary cooperation. Most people wanted to help the FBI, but the FBI knew about rejection. Felt perhaps tolerated my aggressiveness and pushy approach because he had been the same way himself when he was younger, once talking his way into an interview with Hoover and telling him of his ambition to become a special agent in charge of an FBI field office.

It was an unusual message, emphatically encouraging me to get in his face.

With a story as enticing, complex, competitive and fast-breaking as Watergate, there was little tendency or time to consider the motives of our sources. What was important was whether the information checked out and whether it was true. We were swimming, really living, in the fast-moving rapids. There was no time to ask why they were talking or whether they had an ax to grind.

I was thankful for any morsel or information, confirmation or assistance Felt gave me while Carl and I were attempting to understand the many-headed monster of Watergate. Because of his position virtually atop the chief investigative agency, his words and guidance had immense, at times even staggering, authority. The weight, authenticity and his restraint were more important than his design, if he had one.

It was only later after Nixon resigned that I began to wonder why Felt had talked when doing so carried substantial risks for him and the FBI. Had he been exposed early on, Felt would have been no hero. Technically, it was illegal to talk about grand jury information or FBI files -- or it could have been made to look illegal.

Felt believed he was protecting the bureau by finding a way, clandestine as it was, to push some of the information from the FBI interviews and files out to the public, to help build public and political pressure to make Nixon and his people answerable. He had nothing but contempt for the Nixon White House and their efforts to manipulate the bureau for political reasons. The young eager-beaver patrol of White House underlings, best exemplified by John W. Dean III, was odious to him.

His reverence for Hoover and strict bureau procedure made Gray's appointment as director all the more shocking. Felt obviously concluded he was Hoover's logical successor.

And the former World War II spy hunter liked the game. I suspect in his mind I was his agent. He beat it into my head: secrecy at all cost, no loose talk, no talk about him at all, no indication to anyone that such a secret source existed.

In our book "All the President's Men," Carl and I described how we had speculated about Deep Throat and his piecemeal approach to providing information. Maybe it was to minimize his risk. Or because one or two big stories, no matter how devastating, could be blunted by the White House. Maybe it was simply to make the game more interesting. More likely, we concluded, "Deep Throat was trying to protect the office, to effect a change in its conduct before all was lost."

Each time I raised the question with Felt, he had the same answer: "I have to do this my way."

Read More...

Serious UK nuclear leak 'went unnoticed for nine months'

news.scotsman.com
The Scotsman

Serious UK nuclear leak 'went unnoticed for nine months'

MICHAEL BLACKLEY

TENS of thousands of litres of highly radioactive liquid has been leaking unnoticed at the UK's nuclear reprocessing plant for nine months, it was revealed yesterday.

The leak is being described as the worst nuclear accident in Britain for 13 years and could threaten the future of the Thorp plant, at Sellafield in Cumbria, where the leak was discovered on 19 April.

The International Atomic Energy Authority has admitted that it would classify the accident as "serious".

It was only discovered that liquid was leaking last month, but by that time 83,000 litres of radioactive fuel, enough to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool, had already been accidentally discharged.


British Nuclear Group, which runs the plant, said workers had failed to respond to indicators that would have warned since last August that there was a leak. The company has ordered an urgent review to check that there are not any other potential leaks, and is also warning against staff complacency.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Agency, the government quango responsible for the reprocessing plant, said that it will need time to assess the findings before discussing the implications with the government and the company.

But if the decision is taken to close the plant, it is predicted that it would cost taxpayers billions of pounds.

The accident will be a major setback for the government, which was preparing to seek public support for a new generation of power stations to help meet climate-change targets.

The company says the leak was contained and thus was not a threat to public safety, but it could yet face criminal prosecution.

A spokesman for the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate told a Sunday newspaper: "I can confirm we will be seeking to find out what monitors were in place, whether they were working and, if so, why they were not acted on."

Four inspectors have been on site at Sellafield in Cumbria since the accident occurred, tasked with discovering why engineers failed to modify pipes leading to moveable tanks.

The investigation is likely to last many weeks before it is decided whether to take action against the British Nuclear Group.

It is clear that the leak will become a major political issue. David Willetts, the shadow trade secretary, said he would call on ministers to answer urgent questions on the matter when the House of Commons meets next week.

He said the incident would have a major detrimental effect on public confidence in the nuclear industry, and the case would need to be rationally considered.

originally published 30 May 2005

Read More...

Loose Nukes

huffingtonpost.com
Erica Jong: Loose Nukes

As usual, Bill Maher is right. How can anyone keep a straight face in America today? Memorial Day comes and goes and we are hearing all about “brave fallen” while nobody seems to give a shit about the Downing Street memo that got us into the bloody Iraq mess in the first place. Then, Memorial Day is over and we are deep into 30 year old news. “Deep Throat was Mark Felt.” Nora Ephron is hilarious but it remains ancient news even if Woodward and Bernstein did protect their sources. They’ve gotten endless market share and moulah from that fact and good for them. I love it when writers make money, but the real news of the last two weeks has been mostly ignored. The nuclear nonproliferation treaty is dead for another five years. Do we have another five years? And not only are there those loose nukes all over the place (even Bush and Kerry agreed on this in the 2004 Presidential campaign) but there are also several suicidal terrorists ready to lob them at cities like New York, LA, Chicago, Miami, London, Madrid, Rome, Berlin, etc. Hello? I know that Condi Rice couldn’t bother to go to these talks but Duarte said himself they set the cause of nuclear nonproliferation back years and we would have been better off had the talks never occurred. And now we are off and running about a Vanity Fair story that recounts yet again the atrocities of the Nixon administration.

I know, I know. Anonymous sources matter. And God knows it’s no fun to think about nuclear incineration. It’s really depressing. I look at my 16-month old grandson, Max, and I try to wrap my mind around a nuclear accident in New York and my mind just doesn’t want to go there. But let’s get real. Tim Russert did a “Meet The Press” program last Sunday in which a bunch of gray-haired, sober-sided guys -- Senator Sam Nunn, Senator Richard Lugar, Senator Fred Thompson, Lee Hamilton, and Tom Kean of the 9/11 commission -- basically all agreed that we are in danger. The materials are there. The terrorists are there. Nine countries have nukers and counting. Bush wants bunker-busting nuke-cular bombs bigger than the ones we’ve already got -- and the world goes on about a 91 year-old guy confessing about a 30 year old event. I am baffled. Of course, I know you can’t predict the future. Nuclear Armageddon could come from an American, a Russian, a North Korean, an Israeli, an Iranian mistake, a deliberate strike, or (even) a suicidal terrorist with a loose nuke. Kim Jong IL (not a relative) won’t rule out preemptive strike and neither will Bush and Cheney. What we do know is the more materials out there the more the percentages against our survival go up. Think about New York in case of some kind of Chernobyl happening here. Multiply 9/11 times a million. People die, get radiation poisoning, children die or get cancer, the stock market tanks, the world stops dead, nobody worries about "Deep Throat" or Martha Stewart or whether the vote count in Ohio was fudged. Paris Hilton’s engagement is of interest to no one. GMA and the Today Show are still neck-in-neck, but nobody is watching.



Why is nobody focusing on this? What will it take to get us to focus? As we used to say in the 60’s, what do you do in the case of a terrorist with a loose nuke? “Bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.”

It’s hard to think about the future and we almost always get the details wrong. It’s true that most great empires were surrounded by prognostications of decline and fall, and chose to do nothing about them. Rome didn’t fall in a day. Nor did Greece and Sumer. But Rome, Greece and Sumer didn’t have nuclear weapons and people ready to employ them. Even in the 50’s, that ancient age when I was in grade school, we were told to prepare for the nuclear holocaust by putting our oilcloth under our desk on the floor, kneeling below our desks like Muslims in prayer, covering our eyes, waiting for the boom and then…what?

Tim Russert’s “Meet The Press” the other day had a 1950’s general in charge of civil defense say with a straight face, that if the A-bomb fell in America we should all a) go down into our bomb shelters b) eat canned food and drink bottled water for a while and c) be sure to shower frequently to get rid of the radiation. He didn’t say when we should come out of those bomb shelters. The great French sage, La Rochefoucauld said, “Neither the sun nor death can be looked at steadily.”

The sun is blinding and it’s perfectly human to turn away from death. But even if Condi Rice doesn’t want to think about these things and President Bush’s attitude is “we’ll all be dead anyway,” don’t you think somebody should be paying attention? I sure hope we’re not counting on John Bolton to protect us.

Read More...

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Bill Clinton Takes Spot On Global Stage

washingtonpost.com
Bill Clinton Takes Spot On Global Stage

By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer

In 2001, in the opening months of his ex-presidency, Bill Clinton confided to an aide that he had decided on his dream job for the next chapter of his life: secretary general of the United Nations.

The goal may not be realistic, he acknowledged, but he then went on to analyze all the factors in minute detail, as though he were preparing for a political campaign: whether a U.S. president would ever see fit to back him, for one, and what it would take to persuade other nations to bend the long-standing tradition that the top job does not go to someone from a country with permanent status on the U.N. Security Council.

His ambition, as the aide described it, was both breathtaking and entirely logical for a natural-born politician who had reached the top of the American political ladder: "president of the world."

Four years later, say several associates who have spoken with him in recent months, Clinton regards his dream of leading the United Nations as something more than a flight of fancy and something less than a serious prospect. Already, however, he has succeeded to a surprising degree in fashioning his ex-presidency to make himself a dominant player on the world stage.


His ambitions are no less obvious than when he was on the rise as a domestic politician. Clinton wants to present an alternative face of America to the rest of the world -- in implicit opposition to President Bush, and to create a legacy that builds on his eight years in office.

His recent appointment as the U.N. representative on tsunami relief is the highest-profile example of Clinton's travels and activities abroad. The extent to which the 42nd president has preserved influence even after leaving the White House will be far more obvious in September. That is when a large delegation of world leaders, U.S. politicians, business leaders and celebrities of various stripes will arrive in New York for the first Clinton Global Initiative.

The event, as Clinton recently described it, is modeled after the famous annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. But Clinton has said he wants his three-day event to be more focused on concrete results. "I'm telling people not to come unless they are prepared to make a commitment to do something when they leave" on the conference's themes of fighting poverty, religious conflict and environmental degradation.

Among those planning to attend are British Prime Minister Tony Blair, King Abdullah of Jordan, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). Even Rupert Murdoch, whose New York Post and Fox News network are favorite platforms for many of the harshest Clinton critics, plans to be there.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, also organized his post-presidency around international endeavors. But, as the upcoming meeting illustrates, Clinton's post-presidency is in many ways without precedent.

Carter, whom Clinton has described as the most impressive modern ex-president, eventually won a Nobel Peace Prize, but first he spent several lonely years recovering from his 1980 reelection defeat by toiling in relative obscurity. Much of his work has been in remote Third World villages, with no cameras. Clinton, by contrast, relishes the headlines that invariably follow from his overseas jet-setting. So far this year, he has visited 22 nations and met with more than 30 current or former heads of state.

Aides say Clinton's aim is to use his celebrity and networking talents with heads of state and various other famous and wealthy people on behalf of causes such as clean energy and AIDS relief. His Clinton Foundation, for instance, has negotiated steep discounts with pharmaceutical companies on antiretroviral drugs and is facilitating their delivery to about 110,000 people with AIDS in the developing world, with a goal of reaching 2 million by 2008.
Foreign Policy Confidence

Viewed from a long perspective, Clinton's post-presidential career contains an interesting historical twist. In the early years of his administration, the wide perception was that he was predominantly a domestic president.

The conventional wisdom was never quite accurate. Even in the opening months of his first term in 1993, Clinton routinely huddled late into the evening with his advisers on Russia, which he regarded then as the central foreign policy challenge.

It was true that the world abroad was a vexation to a young president who aides said regarded foreign policy as a kind of priesthood, and who had not learned to trust his instincts. The years 1993 and 1994 produced a parade of painful episodes abroad. There was the debacle of a peace mission gone awry in Somalia, two years of hand-wringing over ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, an averted gaze from a genocide that killed 800,000 in Rwanda. Clinton has called failing to act in Rwanda his greatest regret as president.

But, starting with the Dayton accords that ended the Bosnian war in 1995, Clinton began gaining confidence in foreign policy. His signal insight, as veterans of his administration describe it, was the realization that foreign policy was not in the end so different from the subject he knew best, domestic politics. As Clinton saw it, both involved public salesmanship and required leaders who could frame issues to make difficult decisions -- such as persuading people to accept a peace accord with historic enemies -- politically possible.

Beneath the surface, there is a deep vein of politics in Clinton's international activities as ex-president. While he has mostly supported Bush on the Iraq war -- and says that all Democrats should be supporting full victory even if they first opposed the war -- almost every speech he has given in recent months has contained the same refrain, delivered in nearly identical language.

"We can't relate to the rest of the world only through a negative prism, and only through telling them to do things," he told the Chamber of Commerce in Lancaster, Pa. "Why? Because if you live in a world where you can't kill, jail or occupy all your enemies, security will never be enough. You've got to make a world where you've got more friends and fewer enemies, where you make partners."

The veiled criticism of Bush is unmistakable. Clinton, associates say, thinks Bush has weakened U.S. standing in the world by being too dismissive of allies and projecting an image of American arrogance abroad. Bush says he welcomes allies but will not let dissenters abroad stop him from doing what he thinks is necessary to protect security.

For all the new rapport in the Bush-Clinton relationship -- Bush throwing regular rhetorical bouquets to his predecessor and assigning him to visit tsunami-stricken areas -- the two presidents represent twin poles in a pointed ideological debate. Since Sept. 11, 2001, has been at the center of national politics, this argument about the relative balance of force vs. persuasion in U.S. foreign policy has been at the middle of domestic politics.

The debate is reflected in the records of both Clinton and Bush. Many of Clinton's foreign policy achievements were rooted in the America-as-friend philosophy he espouses now. He expanded the NATO alliance and sought to use his rapport with the erratic Boris Yeltsin to establish a cooperative relationship with Russia -- efforts that paid dividends when Moscow helped the United States resolve ethnic conflicts in the Balkans by sending peacekeepers to Bosnia in 1995 and intervening to force a capitulation by Serbia in the 1999 Kosovo war.

One of the guiding principles of Bush's foreign policy was that his predecessor was possessed of a naive worldview. As Bush and his lieutenants see it, Clinton's attempts to coax the late Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat to a peace deal with Israel were folly, while he did not do enough to confront rising threats from Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network.

Clinton also was criticized for passivity in running his government -- including on issues of terrorism. He was not on speaking terms with then-FBI director Louis J. Freeh, whom he appointed. The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks found that Clinton and his top aides thought they had ordered that Osama bin Laden could be killed if there was an opportunity to do so in a covert mission, but that the White House expressed its preference with so many cautionary notes that the CIA believed it did not have permission.

Richard A. Clarke, a former anti-terrorism official who served under Clinton and in both Bush administrations, recalled that "Clinton would make requests, and just assume that these were being done, or that the people around him knew best." He said Clinton should have fired Freeh rather than tolerate a dysfunctional relationship with an essential national security official.
Finding a Second Chance

While the debate continues about Clinton's record as president, his activities as ex-president suggest a man who sees redemptive possibilities on the world stage. Even while president, amid the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, he described Middle East talks as part of "my personal journey of atonement." One of the people helping Clinton raise money for tsunami relief is former White House chief of staff Erskine B. Bowles. He told associates that he was so appalled by Clinton's behavior during the scandal that their nearly fraternal relationship for a time became coolly correct, confined to business.

The role of Ira Magaziner also reflects the theme of second chances. He was famous as the policy architect of the 1993-1994 health care initiative, one of Clinton's most extravagant failures. These days, Magaziner is working nearly full time on the Clinton Foundation's policy programs. He said Clinton has a stature that allows him to draw attention to AIDS treatment and issues that most people never could.

"Some of the problems that have bedeviled him at home and made him controversial don't really exist abroad," Magaziner said. "My sense is he wants to make his ex-presidency one where he has really major accomplishments in the world."

In the United States, the debate over Bush's approach to the world and Clinton's -- between force and persuasion -- remains unsettled. But it seems apparent which approach is more winning abroad. While Bush has generated deep suspicion, especially in Western Europe, Clinton is highly popular, European commentators said.

Europeans who chafe at Bush respond to Clinton's "inclusive, soft-toned way of communicating with the world, and especially with Europeans," said Arnout Brouwers, a prominent Dutch editor who has studied American politics in Washington with the German Marshall Fund. "His personal history, his charms, even his personal failings, helped people identify with him as 'one of us.' "

Former German chancellor Helmut Kohl, a friend of Clinton's, agreed. "The reason Bill Clinton is popular in Europe is very simple: He just is. He is a man of great charisma," Kohl said in a brief interview after a meeting with Bush in Washington.

Asked about Clinton's dream of heading the United Nations, Kohl said: "I do not know if Bill wishes to go to the United Nations. If he wants, I would support him."

Read More...

Conflicted And Mum For Decades

washingtonpost.com
Conflicted And Mum For Decades

By Dan Balz and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers

W. Mark Felt always denied he was Deep Throat. "It was not I and it is not I," he told Washingtonian magazine in 1974, around the time that Richard M. Nixon resigned the presidency in disgrace after a lengthy investigation and threat of impeachment, aided in no small part by the guidance Felt had provided to The Washington Post.

It was a denial he maintained publicly for three decades, until yesterday. Throughout that period, he lived with one of the greatest secrets in journalism history and with his own sense of conflict and tension over the role he had played in bringing down a president in the Watergate scandal: Was he a hero for helping the truth come out, or a turncoat who betrayed his government, his president and the FBI he revered by leaking to the press?

There were plenty of reasons that he felt such conflict. He was an FBI loyalist in the image J. Edgar Hoover had created for the bureau in its glory days -- a career official who lived by the bureau's codes, one of which was the sanctity of an investigation and the protection of secrets. He chased down lawbreakers of all kinds, using whatever means were available to the bureau, and was convicted in 1980 of authorizing illegal break-ins -- black-bag jobs, as they were known -- of friends of members of the Weather Underground. He was later pardoned by President Ronald Reagan.

But if there were reasons to resist playing the role of anonymous source, there were other motives that drove him to talk. Felt believed that the White House was trying to frustrate the FBI's Watergate investigation and that Nixon was determined to bring the FBI to heel after Hoover's death in May 1972, six weeks before the break-in at the Democratic National Committee's Watergate offices occurred.


"From the very beginning, it was obvious to the bureau that a cover-up was in progress," Felt wrote in his 1979 memoir, "The FBI Pyramid."

Felt may have had a personal motivation as well to begin talking to Post reporter Bob Woodward. At the time of Hoover's death, he was a likely successor to take over as FBI director. Instead the White House named a bureau outsider, L. Patrick Gray III, then an assistant attorney general, as acting director and then leaned on Gray to become a conduit to keep the White House informed of what the FBI was learning.

Felt's identity was revealed with the help of his family in a Vanity Fair article released yesterday. A statement from the family, read by Nick Jones, Felt's grandson, described how conflicted he was over whether his role was noble or dishonorable.

"Mark had expressed reservations in the past about revealing his identity and about whether his actions were appropriate for an FBI man," Jones said. "But as he recently told my mother, 'I guess people used to think Deep Throat was a criminal. But now they think he's a hero.' "

Felt operated during extraordinary times in U.S. history, and in the history of the bureau he had been trained to protect at all costs. Faced with a rogue White House, an explosive investigation and political pressure that must have been excruciating, he decided to spill secrets, anonymously helping to change the course of history through clandestine meetings with Woodward in the middle of the night in underground parking garages.

Nixon and his White House colleagues during this period were engaged in what the House Judiciary Committee would eventually call a series of criminal acts -- obstruction of justice, withholding of material evidence, coercion of witnesses, and misuse of the CIA and the Internal Revenue Service.

A secret investigative unit was run from the White House, supported by the CIA and financed by campaign funds to spy on enemies and to break into a psychiatrist's office in a search for confidential files. Twenty-one participants in what came to be known as the Watergate scandal, including the president's counsel, chief domestic adviser, attorney general and campaign finance director, pleaded guilty or were convicted of the crimes documented by the FBI and brought to light -- with Felt's help.

Throughout his career, Felt was seen as a model FBI official. Harry Brandon, who retired from the FBI as deputy assistant for counterintelligence and counterterrorism, recalled making a presentation to Felt as a young agent in the bureau. "He was a tough guy," Brandon said yesterday. "Straight. Very honest. Very straight."

Felt was born in Idaho in 1913. He graduated from the University of Idaho and George Washington University Law School, and joined the FBI in January 1942. He spent World War II in the bureau's espionage section -- experience that came into play 30 years later as he set up the series of signals and codes he and Woodward used when they needed to meet with one another.

He steadily rose through the bureau's ranks. By the early 1970s, as one of the bureau's top officials, he was beginning to demonstrate political independence. At a White House meeting in 1971, he resisted a directive to begin massive wiretaps or polygraph tests to find the source of leaks about the Nixon administration's national security strategy.

In March 1972, the administration was deeply embarrassed by the disclosure of a memo written by a lobbyist at telecommunications giant ITT. It stated that a $400,000 contribution to Nixon's reelection would cause the Justice Department to abandon an antitrust suit against ITT.

White House special counsel Charles W. Colson asked Nixon's personal counsel, John W. Dean III, to obtain an official FBI judgment that the memo was a forgery. Hoover assigned the task of overseeing its inspection to Felt. But Felt reported several days later that the agency's laboratory could not "make a definite finding," a conclusion that undermined the forgery claim, according to Dean's 1976 book, "Blind Ambition."

"Colson, outraged, called Felt to complain. . . . He insisted that I persuade Felt to change the [FBI's summary] letter, at least to make it innocuous. Felt would not budge, because the director would not budge," Dean wrote. Felt, in his memoir, confirmed that the bureau had been subjected to "partisan instructions and pressure" in the case.

Yesterday, Colson said he was stunned to learn that Felt was Deep Throat, saying he never suspected the FBI official because "he was a professional and that wasn't a professional way to behave."

Shortly after that incident, Hoover died and Felt was passed over to succeed him in favor of Nixon loyalist Gray. As the Watergate investigation began to unfold, Felt was infuriated by what he saw as Gray's capitulation to the White House. Gray was "sharing all the Bureau's knowledge with the White House staff," he wrote in his memoir, which "felt they had neutralized the FBI."

"For me, as well as for all the Agents who were involved, it had become a question of our integrity," Felt wrote. "We were under attack for dragging our feet, and as professional law enforcement officers, we were determined to go on."

Within a week, in fact, the FBI's investigation had begun to develop productive leads; its investigators figured out that funds to pay the burglars were laundered through a bank account in Mexico City linked to Nixon's reelection effort. As a result, Nixon's chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, met with the president on June 23 to urge that Vernon A. Walters, then the CIA's deputy director, tell Gray to "stay the hell out of it" on grounds that it would compromise CIA activities in Mexico, according to a transcript of their conversation.

Gray wanted to do so, Haldeman added, and he just needed an order: "He'll call Mark Felt in, and the two of them -- and Mark Felt wants to cooperate because he's ambitious." Nixon replied, "Yeah." Haldeman went on: "He'll call him in and say, 'We've got the signal from across the [Potomac] river to put the hold on this.' "

Later in the conversation, Haldeman sought reassurance that this was the right course of action: "You seem to think the thing to do is get them to stop?" Nixon replied, "Right, fine." Walters met with Gray that day, and according to a memo Walters wrote, Gray told him "this was a most awkward matter to come up during an election year and he would see what he could do."

None of this was known publicly at the time. But two junior reporters at The Post -- Woodward and Carl Bernstein -- repeatedly wrote articles that pointed toward White House involvement in the break-in and the subsequent coverup.

In doing so, they relied heavily on a man they described in their 1974 memoir, "All the President's Men," as "a source in the Executive Branch who had access to information at [the Nixon reelection effort] . . . as well as at the White House. He could be contacted only on very important occasions" and asked to confirm information learned elsewhere and provide "perspective." In print, the duo attributed their information only to "sources close to the Watergate investigation."

The leaks infuriated the White House, which pressured Gray into interrogating all the field agents -- an act that Felt said had sowed wide resentment. "Numerous times, when Gray was out of the city, John Dean called me, demanding that . . . steps be taken to silence the leakers," Felt wrote. "I refused to take such action and frequently I was able to point out to him that some of the leaks could not possibly have come from the bureau."

White House officials suspected Felt was leaking to The Post as early as October 1972. According to an account written five years ago by Chase Culeman-Beckman, who contended that Bernstein's son had told him Felt was Deep Throat, Nixon, Haldeman and Dean were speculating about Felt during one of the sessions tape-recorded in the White House.

"Is he Catholic?" Nixon asked. Told by Haldeman that Felt was Jewish, Nixon replied, "[Expletive], [the bureau] put a Jew in there?" To which Haldeman responded, "Well, that could explain it."

Contrary to their belief, Felt is not Jewish.

On Feb. 28, 1973, Nixon and Dean again tagged Felt as the potential leaker. He was, Dean told Nixon, "the only person that knows" such details. But Nixon was skeptical. No one would risk his career to become an informant.

According to a tape recording from that day, Nixon said, "You know, suppose that Felt comes out and unwraps the whole thing? What does that do to him? . . . He's in a very dangerous situation. . . . The informer is not wanted in our society. Either way, that's the one thing people do sort of line up against. They . . . say, 'Well, that [expletive] informed. I don't want him around.' "

Gray was never confirmed as FBI director, and in 1973 William D. Ruckelshaus was nominated to replace him. Felt clashed repeatedly with his new boss and left the bureau later that year, well before Nixon was to leave office.

In 1978 he was indicted, along with Edward G. Miller, for nine illegal break-ins in New York and New Jersey carried out in 1972 and 1973. When he was arraigned, several hundred FBI agents showed up at the courthouse in a sign of solidarity. The two maintained they had operated within the law but were convicted in 1980. In April 1981, Reagan pardoned both men, saying they had served the country with "great distinction."

In his memoir, Felt acknowledged speaking once to Woodward, but in that book and whenever else he was asked, he denied being Deep Throat. In 1999, Felt denied it again to the Hartford Courant after there was another suggestion that he was Deep Throat.

"I would have done better," he told the paper. "I would have been more effective." That summer, Felt told Slate's Tim Noah it would have been contrary to his responsibilities at the FBI to leak information.

On the day of his conviction in 1980, Felt spoke to reporters outside the courthouse to express his disappointment with the verdict. "I spent my entire adult life working for the government, and I always tried to do what I thought was right and what was in the best interest of this country and what would protect the safety of this country," he said.

Looking back after yesterday's revelation, that quotation may express one of the motivations that led this otherwise unlikely public servant to engage in the surreptitious actions that led to Nixon's political demise.

Researchers Meg Smith, Madonna Lebling and Magda Jean-Louis contributed to this report.

Read More...

Patriot Act Redux, and in the Dark

The New York Times
Patriot Act Redux, and in the Dark

The Patriot Act was passed in haste, in the angst-filled days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with some lawmakers candidly admitting they never read the details. That was one of the reasons key sections included expiration dates, so calmer heads of the future would have an opportunity to fix mistakes. Now that opportunity is here, and far from removing obvious threats to civil liberties in the law, the White House and eager Senate Republicans seem bent on making it worse.

Citizens who want to keep an eye on the process will have no easy task. The most crucial debates of the Senate Intelligence Committee are being kept closed to the public.


This is a terrible idea that gives credence to the worst fears of opponents of Patriot Act I. When the committee resumes its work next week, its leaders should rethink their policy and open their deliberations to the light of day. Accommodations can be made for legitimate security concerns without keeping such a bedrock issue under wraps.

One of the most common complaints about the Patriot Act is that rather than addressing the real but narrow problems with existing law, it was a wish list of powers law enforcement officials had yearned for over the years that Congress had rightly resisted conferring. Now the Bush administration and its Senate allies have come up with another: a proposal to let F.B.I. agents write their own "administrative subpoenas," without the need to consult prosecutors or judges, in demand of all manner of records, from business to medical and tax data. There is no serious evidence that agents have been hamstrung by the lack of such wide authority.

Freeing agents from getting a judge's sign-off is an invitation to overreaching and abuse, as is a proposal to let the F.B.I. ignore postal law restraints when antiterrorism agents choose to monitor someone's letter envelopes and package covers.

Parts of the existing Patriot Act are reasonable law enforcement measures, but other sections should be repealed. Chief among these is the so-called library provision that lets the government seize entire databases at libraries, hospitals and other institutions when just one person is under investigation. Another part of the law makes it a crime for record holders to let the public know when a government data sweep has occurred.

Legitimate complaints that the existing law is overbearing have been heard from hundreds of state and local officials and from civil liberty and libertarian groups. Rather than addressing these flaws, Senate Republicans seem to be planning to compound them, under cover of closed hearings.

Read More...

Cheney Offended

progressive.org
Cheney Offended
by Matthew Rothschild

Dick Cheney says he's "offended."

Not by torture at Guantanamo.

But by Amnesty International's criticism of it.

Said Cheney on Larry King: "For Amnesty International to suggest that
somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly
just don't take them seriously."

He doesn't have to.

He's one of the most powerful men in the world.

And when he says white is black and up is down, he doesn't expect to
be contradicted. On the rare occasions that he is, he takes offense.



Cheney insisted that detainees at Guantanamo "have been well treated,
treated humanely and decently."

But while he was saying that, more reports were coming out from U.S.
tribunals at Guantanamo that echoed the torture that Amnesty
International was describing.

"Americans hit me and beat me up so badly I believe I'm sexually
dysfunctional," one detainee told the tribunal, according to AP.
Another described how an American interrogator "threatened me with a
gun to my mouth, to try to make me say something," the AP story by
Paisley Dodds said.

And these aren't, by any means, the first such reports.

Mustafa Ait Idir had an especially gruesome experience, according to a
lawsuit filed on his behalf.

"The guards secured his hands behind his back, and while he was so
restrained the guards picked him up and slammed his body and his head
into the steel bunk in his cell. The guards picked him up again and
banged his head on the toilet in his cell . . . (and) stuffed Mr. Ait
Idir's face in the toilet and repeatedly pressed the flush button. Mr.
Ait Idir was starting to suffocate, and he feared he would drown. The
guards then carried Mr. Ait Idir outside the cell and threw him on the
ground. His hands still were manacled behind his back. They held him
down and pushed a garden hose into his mouth. They opened the spigot.
As the water rushed in, Mr. Ait Idir began to choke." After further
beating that day, he suffered a stroke, the lawsuit says. (This
account appears in Amnesty International USA's report, "Guantanamo and
Beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power.")

Such treatment does not sound "humane" and "decent" to me.

But neither am I surprised by it.

Shortly after 9/11, Cheney told Tim Russert that the US would have to
work "the dark side" and would have to use "any means at our
disposal."

It's certainly done that.

But Cheney is hard-pressed to say now, to Larry King, that the dark
side is humane and decent.

Read More...

American Credibility Flushed Down the Toilet

observer.com
American Credibility Flushed Down the Toilet
by Nicholas von Hoffman

The puzzle is the size and flush capacity of the toilets in what
Amnesty International calls "the gulag of our time," or what our media
refers to as the "facility" at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. As everybody
knows, a gossip-column item in Newsweek magazine reported that a Koran
had somehow been disposed of down the crapper in front of horrified
Muslim eyes, inciting riots and demonstrations on the other side of
the world.

The Right Honorable Scott McClellan, the voice of the White House,
insisted that American concentration-camp loos are not used for book
disposal. Going into his "people of faith" routine, the man told
reporters that "our United States military personnel go out of their
way to make sure that the Holy Koran is treated with care." Since
Reverend McClellan and his confreres have, as they say, no street cred
left, it would've been more to the point if he'd skipped his carping
about the magazine and addressed the big question—namely, how do
military personnel get rid of big fat holy books via the dumper
without clogging it? If you drop a whole book in and flush, a rather
disgusting overflow will result. Do these Christian soldiers stand by
the toilets, rip out a few pages and flush, rip out some more and
flush, and then rip, flush, rip, flush, until they've gotten rid of
every last holy word?

One other possibility comes to mind: chemical toilets. They don't
flush. A Christian can drop the whole damn Koran down into the mess
and then kick back and listen to the Muslims who witnessed the act
howl.

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, says that Al Qaeda members have
been ordered to lie about their treatment in American camps. Mr.
Whitman, whom I would take to be about as believable on Iraqi topics
as Vladimir Putin discussing Russian democracy, would serve his bosses
better not to bring up the subject of prevarication. In mitigation of
the Pentagon on the question of speaking other than the truth about Al
Qaeda, etc., one cannot distinguish when they are deliberately telling
untruths, when they are themselves misinformed, when they are
ignorant, or when they are being stupid and confused.


Were it not that I am against book burning, book flushing and book
shredding, I would urge that everybody's holy books, starting with the
New Testament, be dropped down the very self-same hole. But also
arguing against such acts of destruction are men and women of
intelligence and wisdom who teach us that these books are valuable if
not used for ecclesiastic aggrandizement. In the practical world,
given the millions of Korans probably in existence, the loss of one or
two makes no difference, except for the part they play in the
religious wars we've been dragged into. Anyhow, since the
Korans-in-the-plumbing story hit the headlines, we have learned that
American Christian soldiers have been mutilating Korans in front of
Arab Muslims for years, or so Muslim prisoners and the F.B.I. say.

Koranic waste management is the least of it. Where there is religion,
there is sex of the sickly variety. The Washington Post has it that
F.B.I. "records also include numerous allegations that guards or
interrogators at Guantanamo Bay used sexually suggestive techniques
designed to humiliate Muslim men." One said he was forced to stand
naked in front of a female interrogator. Another said he was "touched
sexually" by male guards.

There are people aplenty on the outside of government backing up the
White House and the Pentagon; they disbelieve the nasty stuff. David
Brooks, as loyal an administration fugleman as you will find, asks,
"Would it be illegal for more people on the left to actually be happy
that a story slurring Americans may turn out to be unproven? Could
there be a few more liberals willing to admit that prisoners routinely
lie about their treatment? … We're in the middle of an ideological war
against people who want to destroy us …. "

Sometimes prisoners lie and sometimes their jailers do, but Dr. Brooks
and his fellow warriors for the Lord haven't had much success in
discerning which is which. Back when this endless conflict was
starting, it was Saddam—not yet pictured in his undies—who had it
right about the W.M.D. and David Brooks' people who were the tellers
of tall tales. Though exposed countless times, they've continued to
deceive through what is becoming the weary years of this winless war.
Their most recent sojourn into the land of lies concerns the
accidental death by friendly gunfire of Cpl. Pat Tillman, the
patriotic football player who enlisted in the war Mr. Brooks urges
others to fight. For recruiting purposes, the Army concocted a story
about Tillman's heroic death at the hands of the enemy and awarded him
a posthumous medal for an action that never took place.

Nonetheless, would that the tormentors of prisoners had stopped at
fudging the truth and destroying a few books—which, however large
their symbolic value, don't have nervous systems and don't feel pain.
According to ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh, "The evidence that there was
systemic and widespread abuse of detainees in U.S. custody continues
to mount and the government continues to turn a blind eye to this
evidence." (Incidentally, I am an ACLU member and may soon join
Amnesty International.)

The stories of cruelty and sadism committed by members of the Armed
Services and other organs of the American government are now so
numerous that keeping track of them has become a specialty. Here's a
whiff of two that made it into the paper in the last few days.

The first is under Tim Golden's byline in The New York Times: "Even as
the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers
continued to torment him. The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi
driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the
detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer
questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived
in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his
legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands
were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell
for much of the previous four days." Dilawar died.

The day after the Times story, The Washington Post had one by Craig
Whitlock which carried a Stockholm dateline and began: "The CIA
Gulfstream V jet touched down at a small airport west of here just
before 9 p.m. on a subfreezing night in December 2001. A half-dozen
agents wearing hoods that covered their faces stepped down from the
aircraft and hurried across the tarmac to take custody of two
prisoners, suspected Islamic radicals from Egypt.

"Inside an airport police station, Swedish officers watched as the CIA
operatives pulled out scissors and rapidly sliced off the prisoners'
clothes, including their underwear, according to newly released
Swedish government documents and eyewitness statements."

That operation is called, in C.I.A.-speak, an "extraordinary
rendition," which, according to The Post, is "the forcible and highly
secret transfer of terrorism suspects to their home countries or other
nations where they can be interrogated with fewer legal protections."

Ideological or religious, warriors of the Brooksian stripe deny these
stories though buttressed by eyewitnesses, affidavits, photographs and
confessions. Religion deals in faith, not facts. Never happened. Case
closed.

Lefties, liberals and lib-labs—though not Democratic
politicians—insist that torture is Bush administration policy, that
the orders for the thumb screws come out of Don Rumsfeld's office. Mr.
Rumsfeld's people fall back on the rotten-apple-in-the-barrel defense.
It's a plausible argument when sadistic acts are sometime events, but
when they are brought to light week after week in bunches, the
rotten-fruit theory does not hold up.

At some point, somebody must ask: How come so many rotten apples? Who
is in charge of choosing the apples? Who picks them? Who puts the
apples in the barrel, and whose job is it to see the rotten ones don't
spoil the good ones?

Having gone to war with too few troopers, Messrs. Bush, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, etc., had to get soldiers some way, somehow. They got some
by straining the National Guard to the point of disintegration, and
still there weren't enough soldiers. More, the stories of troops ill
equipped, poorly trained and incompetently generaled have had their
effect on recruitment. Young people have been turning down fat
enlistment bonuses, rich promises of college tuition and medical care.
What's left but to pick the rotten apples? The last expedient open to
a manpower-hungry Pentagon has been to let down the standards, to wink
at recruiters breaking the rules to snag people into the service who
shouldn't be in uniform. Apparently some are unsmart, some are
unschooled, some are drug- or alcohol-dependent, and some may have a
taste for inflicting pain and humiliation. How many such people may
have been brought into the services is not known—or if it is, you may
be sure the Pentagon isn't going to say.

In times past, decent soldiers have been made of unpromising recruits.
You can lower the standards and still get good soldiers with the right
training and proper supervision. A man or a woman with sadistic
desires will not get to act them out if the unit is in good order and
under strong discipline. Thus, whether or not the torture, the
kidnapping and the throwing of civilians into the concentration camps
is policy or failure of command, the people at the top are still
responsible. The vaunted Pentagon command and control, like so many of
the doodads coming out of the five-star war house, is not living up to
its press releases.

The top people will not be held responsible. Mr. Brooks isn't the only
one who turns a blind eye at practices that make others gag; there are
a lot of shit kickers in America who approve of hanging Mohammedans up
by the testicles until they die. I suspect, though, there are more of
us who do not approve or would not approve if we noticed, but we are
busy speculating in real estate, watching the basketball playoffs,
bitching about the price of gasoline or planning summer vacations. We
do not pay attention to what is done in our name.

And it's quite a name we're getting, the world's No. 1 and only
superpower, the Johnny Appleseed of democracy. Quite a name.

Read More...

Jesus, Is This News?

inthesetimes.com
Jesus, Is This News?
By Susan J. Douglas

No matter how much columnists and media critics bemoan the sorry state
of American journalism, no matter how low the press sinks in the
estimation of the American people, the news media, particularly on
television, remains defiantly abysmal. Now, on top of the usual toxic
doses of runaway brides, irrelevant celebrity trials and President
Bush holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah, we have the rise of
Jesus News.

Blinded by their own erroneous news frame that the last election was
all about "moral values," and pressured to give religion more coverage
by an evangelical right running on methamphetamines, the news media
are devoting more airtime to everything Jesus.

The ghoulish death watch of Pope Paul John II ("Is he dead yet?" "No,
Bob, not dead yet, back to you.") hogged nearly an hour of total news
time on the three networks from March 28-April 1, and his death and
funeral preparations garnered 129 minutes of network news attention
the following week, making it the year's third biggest story so far.
By contrast, that same week, Tom Delay's ethics problems received four
minutes of coverage on ABC and CBS combined, and none on NBC. By the
week of April 18-22, when the networks devoted 37 minutes to the
Conclave of Cardinals ("Is the smoke white or black, Bob?") and
another 32 minutes to the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as the
new pope, one might have thought Catholicism had become our state
religion.


The week of May 2, ABC news inaugurated a series called "Under God,"
about how conservative Christians are "searching for new ways to make
their mark on popular culture." First up was a story about Christian
cheerleading camps, and the next day a story about how Christians like
to spank their kids. By the time Thursday's episode, "Faith and
Fashion Under God" aired, one sensed that some at ABC had been a bit
hoodwinked. Here we learned that "a growing number of people,
especially young people, are proudly wearing their beliefs." Cut to a
picture of the campy baseball cap that has a picture of Jesus on it
and reads, "Jesus is my Homeboy."

My daughter has that cap; so do quite a few of her friends. They have
it because they find it hilarious and irreverent. It is the ironic
juxtaposition of hip hop slang with evangelism that they love; the
last thing they are doing is "wearing their beliefs."

And then there's Fox News. It routinely traffics in interviews with
folks like the Reverend Franklin Graham, whose newsworthy
pronouncements include "Jesus ... came to this Earth to take sinners
and save us from our sins ... [we need to] receive Christ by faith."
Fox is the platform from which James Dobson of Focus on the Family can
accuse Democratic Senators of being, well, the infidel. Not be
outdone, NBC's "Dateline" with Stone Phillips had a story about an
exorcism to rid a man of demons.

What are we to make of the rise of Jesus news? Yes, it is indeed
important to know what the religious right is up to, especially as
they seek to pack the courts with Jesus freaks, outlaw the teaching of
evolution, reverse decades of environmental regulation because "the
rapture" is just around the corner, and suppress free speech and
academic freedom on college campuses by charging that evangelical
students are "silenced' and "harassed" and thus should be able to sue.

But that's not the detailed coverage we're getting, at least not on
TV. Instead, Jesus news embezzles time away from stories people really
need to hear, like much more detailed coverage of the Bush/Republican
energy bill, which got a total of six minutes of coverage from all
three networks when it passed the house the week of April 18.

Not to mention local news. Here in Michigan, we are contemplating, and
not without bitterness, the famous 1955 quotation from Charlie Wilson
who said of his company "What's good for General Motors is good for
the rest of America." In that year, GM sold over half of the cars
purchased in the United States. Today, GM has been downgraded to junk
bond status. The company's arrogant, willful myopia, which has kept it
producing gas-guzzling, poorly designed, undesirable cars, could very
well lead to a major fiscal disaster in Michigan and elsewhere. But
except for the business pages, (and the Detroit News and Free Press),
this has not gotten near the attention that the religious invocations
used at NASCAR rallies has.

The parade of evangelicals on TV exaggerates the numbers of these
folks and makes them seem much more influential than they are--or
certainly should be. Rather than clones of the Christian Broadcasting
Network, we need solid, investigative work about the money,
organizations and, indeed, the cynicism behind all of these crusading
efforts to turn our country into a giant Bible camp.

Read More...

Another worthless press conference: Bush bobs, weaves and misleads

The Nation
Another worthless press conference: Bush bobs, weaves and misleads
By David Corn

I posted this on my personal blog while traveling in a Red state:

George W. Bush doesn't disappoint. That is, if you expect him to dodge
tough questions and misrepresent facts.

At his press conference today, Bush hailed "Operation Lightning," the
current military offensive to secure Baghdad as a sign of progress,
noting that 40,000 Iraqi troops were patrolling the streets of the
capital. Bush should check in with his own military. For days,
military sources have been telling reporters that the actual number of
Iraqi troops deployed for this action is much less, probably about
one-third to one-half of the 40,000 figure cited by Bush. And the
performance of these security forces has come under question. (Do Bush
and Dick Cheney live in a fantasy land? Though US military commanders
have been saying the insurgency could last years, Cheney yesterday
claimed it is "in the last throes.")

At least twice during the press conference, Bush was asked a question
that challenged a basic policy and he ducked. Noting that Bush has
called for democracy and human rights for all citizens of the world, a
reporter asked why Bush had not spoken out against the May 13 massacre
of hundreds of unarmed protesters in Uzbekistan.


This slaughter was mounted by the repressive and corrupt regime of
Islam Karimov, an ally of Bush in the war on terrorism who allows the
United States to maintain a major airbase in his country. (For more
information on this, click here.) In response, Bush insisted that he
had called for the International Red Cross to investigate what
happened. He added, "We expect all our friends...to honor human
rights." This was a rather lukewarm statement. The basic facts have
been confirmed: government troops slaughtered about 700 to 1000 people
who were calling for political and religious freedom. The British
government has expressed outrage and called for democratic reforms in
Uzbekistan (where the government in recent years has locked up
thousands of political prisoners). Bush's call for more information is
a weasel-ish cop-out. He is unwilling to criticize this murderous
authoritarian regime because he has cut a deal with Karimov. So much
for his high-flying rhetoric about democracy and freedom. It does not
apply to the dead of Uzbekistan.

Bush also declined to confront a serious matter related to his
moralistic rhetoric about stem cells research. He has claimed that
stem cells research that uses leftover blastocysts (early embryos of
100 or so cells) found in fertility clinics is unethical because it
involves the destruction of these blastocysts. But there are 400,000
or so of these frozen blastocysts stored in fertility clinics across
the country. What should be done with them? a reporter asked Bush.
This question does get to the core of the issue. If you believe these
embryos cannot be destroyed for scientific research that might lead to
cures and treatments for terrible diseases, you certainly cannot be in
favor of tossing them into the garbage. And then what are your
choices? Keep them frozen forever? Give them names? It's a question
for which the foes of stem cell research generally have no answer. You
can ban in vitro fertilization, but you still would have the 400,000
leftovers now in stock.

How did Bush handle this tricky--and fundamental--issue? He took a
powder. "The stem cell issue is really one of federal funding," he
said. He did note that he had held an event at the White House with
"little babies" who had grown from adopted embryos. Indeed, a few
dozen leftover blastocysts have been adopted. But are there 400,000
people lining up for the rest of these Petri dishes? The question
remains: what should be done with these deep-frozen fertilized eggs?
Bush offered no guidance.

It's no surprise that Bush bobs, weaves and misleads. The real
disappointment is that the hound dogs of the press corps do not
challenge him when he does so. They sit there well-behaved, wait to be
called upon, and rarely think of tossing aside their prepared
questions and asking, "With all due respect, Mr. President, you didn't
answer the question on the leftover embryos. Can you please tell us
specifically what should be done with them. Or do you have no idea?"
Bush can tap-dance his way through a press conference because his
not-so-grand inquisitors do nothing to change the tune.

Read More...