I've been suggesting that one of the stories within a story that will play out as we dig into the CIA leak scandal is the ongoing, but often silent, rift between the administration and many in the CIA. I also think the positioning of Valerie Plame's CIA role will be paramount.
Here's former CIA agent Jim Marcinkowski bringing those two topics together:
What has suffered irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince an overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us. Each time the political machine made up of prime-time patriots and partisan ninnies display their ignorance by deriding Valerie Plame as a mere paper pusher or belittling the varying degrees of cover used to protect our officers or continuing to play partisan politics with our national security, it's a disservice to this country.
Kaboom.
Let me make this clear. I get tired of the Dems complaining that Rove and Co play too rough. The idea is to outsmart the other side and to do a better job of messaging.
But this is not politics as usual or just another tough political tactic.
This is an administration that attacked the patriotism of those who have fought in wars while leaking the name of a CIA official working keeping WMD out of the country in an effort to pave the way for other potential future victims of partisan attacks to spend a few years in harm's way.
That's a big deal.
. . . July 21, 2005
The Gateway Latte
The other day at a roundtable thrown by SF's Luncheon Society, I had the chance to ask California Attorney General Bill Lockyer about the insanity of the nation's medical marijuana debate. Like many of us, Lockyer has been directly impacted by the debate as two of his relatives have unfortunately suffered from diseases for which medical pot could provide rare moments of relief. He described the current restrictions on medical marijuana as "silly." Of course, it's really worse than that. The restrictions on the use of medical marijuana are cruel, unusual and wholly ridiculous. The crazy thing is that I can see talking heads from either side of the aisle making an argument in favor of providing pot to those who suffer from serious diseases. Let's add a dose of realism to the debate. At least in my neck of the woods, a bedridden and seriously ill patient is probably the only person who can't easily procure some pot with little or no risk. I wondered if now isn't the time that a group of politicos could finally begin to add some common sense to this debate. Lockyer's take was that, no matter how you position the issue, law enforcement sees pot as a gateway drug and to them it's no different than coke or heroin. It's hard to accept that argument (for me and the Attorney General). After all, when you consider the cocktail of toxic prescription drugs that many of these patients are subjected to, if anything, marijuana is a drug that provides a gateway back towards weaker and less intense drugs. If we are really worried about weak drugs that can bring out the addictive parts of our personalities, maybe we should focus on Starbucks, not weed. I've never seen a major group of people heading towards the outpost of my neighborhood's local pot connection. But they are lined up out the door at every Starbucks in my city (and they appear every three blocks or so). There are so many political issues where one has to, for sanity's sake, sit back, sigh and just accept the nonsense. There are other times when the stupidity crosses the line. Maybe we should call that gateway stupidity.
A classified memo issued by the State Dept makes it clear that Valerie Plame was a CIA employee who was working on covert operations (or at least that her identity was covert).
A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.
The legal aspect of this is important. But the political angle is the one to watch. As I've explained before, the public appetite for this scandal will ultimately come down to one key issue: Will Plame be viewed a desk worker whose outing was bad form (and illegal), but no threat to national security. Or were lives and covert operations put at risk?
If the latter is the general view, keep your hands and feet in because this is going to be a wild ride.
In the next several days, Electablog will become part of Davenetics. It will still be a separate category, so if you just want politics, that's what you will get. Your current RSS feed will still get only political headlines. Electablog will become: Davenetics : Politics The current Davenetics blog will become: Davenetics : Media and there will be a new section called Musings that will include all those random takes that defy categorization (and in many cases, common sense). I made this decision to merge the blogs after getting a ton of great feedback from many of you. So thanks for the advice. I felt it made sense to have one brand since I can still maintain the distinct categories for those of you who prefer things the way they are. You will see the same familiar look, colors, everything. And there are other new and exciting features I will be rolling out in the next week.
To many, President Bush firing Karl Rove would be the equivalent of the Pope firing God. I'm not so sure, but to have a better idea of where this is going, we first need to take a quick look back at the development of the CIA leak scandal. I recently attended a lunch with Joseph Wilson and he spent some time telling the story of the CIA leak from his perspective. Some of those thoughts are incorporated here: - Joseph Wilson was hired by the Feds to go to Niger to check out the validity of suggestions that Saddam had made repeated attempts to score yellowcake from Niger. Why Wilson? He had spent years in Africa and was considered an expert (not on nukes, but on the way the government and the military are managed in Niger). - OK, but there are a lot of experts. Why Wilson? Was it because his wife pulled some strings? No, that is the misinformation. After reading the news during and after the election cycle, you'd think Joseph Wilson was a left wing maniac. Actually, he got that Ambassador title thanks to the first President Bush. In fact, Wilson was treated to the sans kid gloves treatment by the Democrats in the Senate during his confirmation sessions (in no small part because he was considered to be one of James Baker's guys). Now that is the backdrop. Did Plame suggest Wilson for the job? Yes, she did. Does that matter? No. I don't care if Barbara Streisand nominated Joe Wilson for the job. He was qualified. So qualified in fact that he got the facts right. - Wilson quickly determined that there was no truth to the Niger story. And he wasn't the only one. Other independent investigators (including a former general) came to the same conclusion. - Plenty of folks from the State Dept to the White House got word that the original report of a Saddam-Niger connection was hogwash. The report still made it into the President's State of the Union Address. You can come up with your own thoughts on motivations for this. - Joe Wilson was frustrated. He knew what his report said and he knew that everyone in W's circle likely heard of his report and others with similar findings. He responded to the use of false information to boost the threat level in the minds of Americans by writing a NYT op-ed piece called, "What I Didn't Find in Africa." - The Bush team has a long standing practice of responding to attacks (especially those that are true) by attacking the credibility of the attacker. And so it was with Wilson. The angle: Discredit Wilson by insinuating that he is a hack and the only reason he was even in Niger was because his wife, a CIA employee, pulled some strings. - It's important to note that Valerie Plame's job at the CIA was to help keep weapons of mass destruction from entering the U.S. You probably don't need to put on your irony cap to see the insanity of this factor. At the same time the Rove-led Bush election team is ripping John Kerry for being too easy on terrorists, they are outing a CIA agent focused on WMD and terrorism in an effort to discredit the reputation of her husband. Security takes a backseat to winning elections. No big deal, eh? - The Plame leak was tested out on several journalists. Bob Novak wrote the piece that first outed Plame. According to Wilson, by the end of that day, several operations in which she was involved had to be discontinued. Essentially, her long career in the CIA (at least when it comes to covert ops) came to an end. - A few hours after Novak's story breaks, Chris Matthews calls Joseph Wilson and tells him that he just got off the phone with Karl Rove who let him know that Plame is "fair game." So where are we now? Who gets busted? Who gets protected? The answers to those questions will depend on a few major factors. Meanwhile, we will see many stories within a story playing out. One key factor will be how Plame's role at the CIA is positioned in the media, etc. I recently heard an interview with Bob Woodward in which he suggested that Plame was a desk worker and that her outing had no impact on matters of security. On the other hand, Joseph Wilson indicated that all of her missions had to be scrapped and that it is likely that informants were killed once this story broke. Which is true, the former or the latter? If the latter positioning is the one that gets picked up by most Americans, heads will roll. But would a loyalty-focused dude like W drop the man who has helped him win so many elections? Wouldn't that be, as I mentioned above, like the Pope firing God? Perhaps. But don't be too sure. Remember, in the world of the Bush elites, Rove is a genius, but he's still part of the proletariat. His fate will depend on who else was involved. If Rove has to be cut to protect a more elite member of the inner circle, he'll be gone faster than a speeding Scooter. And the stories within the story... First, it is no secret that the GOP has had a long standing policy of discrediting the media to give themselves a more direct messaging line to voters by way of direct mail, the radio and the net. Karl Rove, as the man currently behind everything electoral, is the man who is charge of this strategy as well. This seems like a pretty good moment for many in the media to strike back. There is, of course, some irony in the fact that Joseph Wilson came out with what we now know to be the truth of the matter in the NY Times - one of the key targets of the GOP discrediting efforts. Second, there hasn't been much love between this administration and the CIA. Don't expect anyone in the CIA to be stepping to the front of the line to say that outing Plame really didn't mean the risking of much of anything. And more importantly, don't let the details of the political and media games distract you from a question that still hasn't been well-answered. Why did Bush include the line in the State of the Union Address and what were the main motivations behind the Iraq invasion. Whichever way the war finally plays out, that question will need to be answered.
. . . July 16, 2005
Balming Run
Tony Blair has outlined the fight against terrorism. Rightly, he explains that it is a war of ideas more than a war of weapons (maybe it's ultimately a confrontation with symptoms). In the end it is by the power of argument, debate, true religious faith and true legitimate politics that we will defeat this threat. What we are confronting here is an evil ideology. It is not a clash of civilizations - all civilized people, Muslim or other, feel revulsion at it. But it is a global struggle and it is a battle of ideas, hearts and minds, both within Islam and outside it.
This is the battle that must be won, a battle not just about the terrorist methods, but their views. Not just about their barbaric acts, but their barbaric ideas. Not only what they do, but what they think and the thinking they would impose on others.When you think of the devastated psychic worlds of those who can be recruited into these suicide missions, we're really talking less about a war and more about a rescue mission.
. . . July 13, 2005
Attack, Anyone?
What do you do if you are part of a GOP machine that's been put on the defensive by the Rove scandal? If you don't know the answer to that, then you've missed the point of Karl Rove's whole career.
Over the past week, President Bush has been hammering home the point that the message of the London bombing is, "The best way to defend America is to stay on the offense." One can debate that point. In many cases, he could be right. But that hardly seems to be the message of last week's events. If anything, we've learned in no uncertain terms that the murderous, cultish disease of terrorism can quickly and effectively spread among those who live among us. The germ does not need to be nurtured in a petri dish or a cultural vacuum. This is remarkable. When Hitler first started his proganda war against the Jews, Germans and other Europeans questioned his ideology because they had friends and neighbors who were Jews. That's why ghettoization was a necessary part of the plan. Hitler needed to get the Jews (and the reality) out of the line of vision of those he sought to brainwash. Extending from this historical model, it sort of makes sense that bin Laden and others have been able to convince young, frustrated and repressed males that America and the Jews are the cause of all their problems. But these global cells are something entirely different and are in many ways a lot more scary. The wildly false and ultimately (and often literally) self-destructive indoctrination is working even when the targets of that messaging live among their potential victims. There is no cave to smoke out and no bunker to bust. The challenge in the coming years is to figure out some way (in between the bombing runs that are hard for anyone to argue against at times like these) to address and begin to treat this social psychosis that is being absorbed into a generation of young Muslim males. It will be anything but easy. But really, there is no other viable solution. Of course, keeping terror networks on the run is a good thing. Hitting them hard is mandatory. There is evidence that the monster has become headless - in Iraq, an Egyptian envoy was killed on the same day as the bombings which makes no sense if there was some broad coordination. I'm willing to believe that we have some elements of Al Qaeda on the run. And I certainly believe that there is no option but to stay the course in Iraq at this point. But none of this will address the one element that we cannot seem to come close to getting a grip on: The madness.
It shouldn't be lost on anyone that the London bombings were seemingly intended to disrupt the G8 meetings where some of the world's leaders were busy earmarking more money to combat poverty in Africa. And of course, it was Tony Blair himself who was leading that charge, so the bombs were even more politcally damaging (or could have been) to the world's poorest people. It also pays, as we mourn along with the citizens of what I think is the world's greatest city (due in no small part to its inspiring diversity), to keep in mind the intensity of the two problems fused in our minds during the course of one terrible morning. In the span of time during which the London bombs were detonated, about 1,140 children in Africa died of causes related to their extreme poverty. I am not trying to set up some kind of competition over who had it the worst that day. I simply want to make sure that we don't allow the sick murderers who planned the London bombings to add distracting the world from an urgent and righteous cause to their already long list of crimes against humanity.
. . . July 7, 2005
Knee Jerk Syndrome
If your initial, gut response to today's London bombings was to rip the President for his Iraq policy or to rip the left for not understanding the continuing threat of terror - if your first knee jerk reaction was to squeeze today's tragic events into your own non-stop partisan rant, then you have a problem.
You need to slap yourself across the face and snap out of it. If that doesn't do the trick, consider asking someone else to do the slapping. I'm guessing that they'll be plenty of takers.
Since last Saturday, London has seen the majesty and meaning of the Live8 concerts and the horror and insanity of terrorist attacks.
The best and worst of humanity in the space of a week.
Judith Miller was paraded off to jail today for refusing to name her source in the Valerie Plame leak case. In an interesting twist, Matthew Cooper indicated that he was released from the promises of confidentialty by his source just before today's hearing.
This could get a lot more interesting in the very near term.
More to come on this matter soon...
London got the Olympics.
Tony Blair should be relieved that the decision wasn't left up to President Bush. Because when it comes to those matters (little things like climate change and Africa), W didn't budge much at all.
Is it my imagination or are the headline writers at the Washington Post starting to channel Wonkette? 
In a recent poll, more than 40% of Americans indicated that Congress should consider the impeachment of President Bush if it turns out he didn't tell the whole truth about the reasons for going to war with Iraq.
Seems like just voting against him would've been a more measured reaction, no?
The opening on the Supreme Court will certainly offer up an interesting glimpse into the mind of the President. The smart money is on the nominee being somewhere between pretty conservative and incredibly conservative. The far right has already started an aggressive campaign warning W to make sure he leans more towards the latter. But I wonder. Maybe it's a bizarre fantasy, but I've always had a strong feeling that Bush and Co don't really believe a lot of the far right gospel that they preach. They push the message because they're confident it can get them the extra points to win elections. I think it's more of a Faustian (Roveian?) bargain than a firm set of beliefs. W, after all, is the son of a president and attended Ivy League schools. Folks, if that ain't the intellectual elite then what is? You really think a guy with W's background wants prayer in schools and spends a lot of time hoping to limit the rights of gays? Maybe, but I just don't think so. My gut tells me that W is a whole lot more comfortable wearing Birkenstocks in Kennebunkport than he is wearing steeltoed shitkickers in Crawford. So that leaves him with a big decision. Does he follow his politics or does he follow his biography?
Long time readers will note that for several years I have described myself as a pragmatic self-preservationist. I personally have altruistic tendencies, but I think such qualities make for a tough sell when it comes to doing the right thing in geopolitical terms. It makes far more sense to do the right thing because it is ultimately in your national self-interest. Why? Because that pitch can sell. Recently we've been told that the economic support of Africa is not a matter of charity but rather a matter of justice. I think, to really sell something bold in the U.S. and elsewhere, we need to position "saving" Africa as neither a matter of charity nor justice but rather one of self-interest. We now know, in no uncertain terms, that the pain and frustration felt in once remote parts of the world can reach out and touch us here at home in most significant of ways. It makes a whole lot more sense to deal with it now than later. Bono made a similar point a year ago when he explained that fighting disease in Africa now is "cheaper than fighting wave after wave of the terrorists' new recruits." Tony Blair hit on this during a recent interview Time Magazine: IN CREATING THE G-8 AGENDA, WERE YOU FOCUSING ON AREAS IN WHICH YOU DISAGREE WITH PRESIDENT BUSH TO OFFSET THE POLITICAL TROUBLES YOU'VE FACED FOR BEING HIS ALLY IN IRAQ?
No, it's not that. We have rightly taken tough action on terrorism, in favor of our own security. But it's also important that we act on the long-term problems that can give rise to the issues of terrorism and security.
DOES THE PRESIDENT OWE YOU ANYTHING FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN IRAQ THAT HE MIGHT REPAY WITH ASSISTANCE TO AFRICA?
That isn't the right way to look at it. What the President should do is what's right for America and the world. Africa is the only continent in the world that's gone backwards in the last 30 years. I find it morally disgusting that thousands of people die every year from killer diseases we can do something about. But this is a continent where if we don't take action, we're going to store up a lot of problems for ourselves in the future.Blair probably doesn't need this sales pitch to convince himself, but it's the right political move and strangely enough, it's also clearly true. If you are really concerned about the long term threat of global terrorism, the two places in the world where you should be directing your gaze are Africa and those battered communities to our south where a miserably ineffective war on drugs is adding insult to our absurd drug related strategies at home. We may not, even today, totally understand the mindset of the Islamic terror groups. But if some teenager from Africa or Colombia strapped a bomb to his person and headed for our borders, wouldn't you sort of get exactly where he was coming from?
W got a major 4th of July weekend gift as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor offered her letter of resignation.
O'Conner was often a swing vote in favor of moderation even though she had been appointed during the Reagan era.
Expect that factor and the acrimony and ridiculousness of the times to lead to a shift way to the right by Bush and Co.
I don't know about you, but I plan to filibuster right through the fireworks.
The Supreme Court was split on the issue of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land:
The Supreme Court ruled today that displaying the Ten Commandments on government property does not necessarily violate the constitutional principle that there must be a separation between church and state.
In one of the cases, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote: "While the Commandments are religious, they have an undeniable historical meaning. Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause."
The Judeo-Christian god has now been reduced (or promoted, depending on your religious beliefs) to the status of historical and not necessarily religious meaning?
I doubt that even Zeus would put up with that.
. . . June 23, 2005
Preparing for War
So the reaction to the obviously orchestrated comments by Karl Rove is heating up.
The Rovian line in question:
Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.
I have to tell you, as a so-called liberal, a regular consumer of left coast therapy and a major proponent of understanding, I really don't feel that driven to get excited and anxiously defend myself and my Party against Karl's comments. They were delivered to illicit just such a response.
I just want to clarify one thing. In 9-11's aftermath of twisted metal and deadly clouds of despair and shock, it was not the Conservatives who prepared for war. It was the men and women who of the U.S. military who prepared for war.
I think it makes sense to get that part right. Don't mistake tough talk for tough walk.
. . . June 17, 2005
My Family Name
You've heard a lot of Holcaust stories, but you probably haven't heard one like this one being covered in the SF Chronicle. Book resurrects family name for Holocaust survivor - S.F. man recounts escaping Nazis and fighting back
Every Holocaust story is unique, but Joe Pell's is so extraordinary it transcends the genre.
Pell's book, "Taking Risks," is part World War II saga, part adventure tale, part memoir. It encompasses the tragedy of the war and the triumph of the survivors. It goes from Pell's days sleeping on leaves and digging for potatoes in the Ukrainian woods to his life among the Bay Area's most successful businessmen.
It's also a great read...
... The Nazi tanks were soon rolling through Manievich, and most of the Jews there were shot by Nazi soldiers going door to door or rounding them up into ghettos. Pell's entire family -- three brothers, a sister and his parents -- were killed over a period of months. Pell was spared because he hid in a barn when the Nazis came to his family's home.
With no place to go, he fled into the thick forest behind the town, and soon found others who had also escaped. They foraged for food and faced the sure death of oncoming winter, until they met a larger band of people living in the woods who had set up a camp. The group included escaped Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Soviets and others who either had no place to go or wanted to fight the Nazis.
This group of renegades, called partisans, subsisted in the woods throughout the war, mostly safe from the Germans because the Nazi tanks couldn't traverse the forests. At first they stole food and guns from neighboring farms at night, but later the Soviets supplied them with weapons and supplies.
The partisans, including Pell, who joined them at 18, embarked on dozens of missions to disrupt the Nazis by blowing up train tracks, bombing bridges, cutting telephone lines and damaging highways. Pell had the opportunity to take revenge upon those who had informed on his and other Jewish families.
They also fed and housed a group of about 500 refugees in the woods ... And that's my dad. Read the whole article here.
| 
