Author: jpol

[From the diaries by susanhu.] Last Saturday, July 16th, two interesting events occurred. First I read on Bradblog that Symantic had, for the past week, been blocking all e-mail that either came from or mentioned in its text “afterdowningstreet.org.” I was skeptical, but shortly thereafter I received my first e-mail from this group in a week, and it had been sent three days earlier. Concerned, I sent e-mails both to Comcast Abuse, and to Comcast customer care seeking confirmation or denial that this had indeed occurred, and if the former, requesting an explanation. I received auto-responses promising that a personal response would follow. It never came.
Afterdowningstreet.org has a fairly thorough accounting of the blocking on their site, and the story has been gaining mileage. Common Dreams reported on it this past Wednesday.

After seeing the Common Dreams piece I phoned Comcast headquarters and asked to speak to someone in the executive offices. I was connected to a person who was clueless about this, and he switched me to Government Affairs, thinking they might know more. I got someone’s voice mail and left a detailed and specific message. No one called me back. Finally yesterday I called back the person I had spoken with on Wednesday and complained vociferously about the run-around I was getting. I made it clear that I thought there were serious constitutional issues involved, and that as a paying Comcast customer I was entitled to some answers.

Finally today I received the following e-mail from an “Executive Support Analyst” in “National Customer Service”:

I was not satisfied with this response and sent this follow-up e-mail:

Lest I be suspected of accusing Comcast of conspiring with the Bush administration to interfere with national protest activity being planned by afterdowningstreet.org and Congressman John Conyers, another explanation comes to mind, albeit a sinister one. What is there to stop a Bush-friendly organization from making mischief by having their members sign up to receive “afterdowningstreet.org” e-mails and then reporting them as un-solicited spam? I am prepared to believe that Comcast and Semantic are not deliberately censoring our mail, but the blocking procedure they describe is very vulnerable to the whims of any group with an agenda. Does any one doubt that there are people and organizations out there capable and willing to engage in this kind of dirty trick?

This diary was just posted at TPM Cafe

Josh Marshall intros it and links to it at his primary web site, Talking Point Memo

“LARRY JOHNSON IS a retired CIA officer who was a classmate of Valerie Plame’s when both entered the CIA in the mid-1980s. Johnson just did a guest post over at TPMCafe in which he explains the damage that was done when administration officials revealed Plame’s identity, who’s lying and who’s not.”

THE BIG LIE ABOUT VALERIE PLAME

By Larry Johnson Jul 13, 2005 — 12:47:20 AM EST

From: TPMCafe Special Guests

EXCERPTS (REVISED)

The misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans’ talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie.

For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak…

Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA…in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercoverwas a get out of jail free card.

A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O’Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.

…”I don’t know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC…

They try to hide behind the specious claim that Joe Wilson “lied”. Although Joe did not lie…Joe Wilson…tried to prevent the needless death of Americans and the loss of American prestige in the world.

But don’t take my word for it, read the biased Senate intelligence committee report. Even though it was slanted to try to portray Joe in the worst possible light this fact emerges on page 52 of the report: According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe’s visit in February 2002), “Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on.” Joe’s findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.

The Republicans insist on the lie that Val got her husband the job. She did not…the decision to send Joe Wilson on this mission was made by her bosses.

…Shame on those who continue to slander Joe Wilson while giving Bush and his pack of liars a pass. That’s the true outrage.

In past diaries I have opined that Judith Miller’s refusal to testify before the grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame affair is rooted not in her desire to protect confidential sources, but rather in her belief that she herself is a target of the investigation facing possible indictment. I believe that the evidence in support of this theory is more in evidence every day.
At least two news accounts have hinted that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has a journalist in his sights in his ongoing investigation.

Other things are also clear. Fitzgerald has indicated in court papers that he wants to learn more about contacts Miller had with an “identified government official” that occurred on or about July 6, 2003 — the date Joe Wilson’s op-ed piece discrediting administration claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy yellow cake from Niger — appeared in The New York Times. Fitzgerald also states that Miller’s “source,” whose identity he already knows, has signed a waver freeing Miller to testify about whatever communication she had with him. Fitzgerald has obtained blanket wavers from four White House officials, including Karl Rove, so it is probably a safe bet that Miller is “protecting” one of those four.

Miller, of course, is not the only journalist who has become a “person of interest” to the special prosecutor. She is, however, the only one who has claimed blanket immunity against even having to appear before the grand jury. Matthew Cooper of Time, Inc., for example, testified last summer along with Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post and Tim Russert of NBC about discussions they had with Dick Cheney Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby after Libby provided a “personal waver” releasing them from any promise of confidentiality. According to press reports, the journalists sought and received additional assurances from Fitzgerald that placed limits on their testimony. “I personally called Libby about a waiver,” Mr. Cooper told The New York Times, “and he said that if it was O.K. with his lawyer it was O.K. with him.” Cooper has now agreed to testify a second time after receiving what he regarded as similar assurances from Karl Rove.

So in at least five other cases journalists, all of whom refused to honor blanket wavers signed by their sources because they might have been coerced, sought and received personal wavers and then agreed to testify. They also all apparently sought and received some assurances from Fitzgerald allowing them to limit their testimony.

Now what of Judith Miller? According to The New York Times:

Jack Shafer of Slate, a frequent critic of Miller, but a defender of her right to protect her sources, has been highly critical of her blanket refusal to appear before the grand jury. He wrote in Slate: “I don’t know of any court, let alone the Supreme Court, that is likely to hold that reporters possess a near automatic right to ignore grand jury subpoenas.”

So let’s add it all up: At least four other reporters on at least five other occasions refused, as did Miller, to honor blanket wavers that might have been coerced. The other four sought and received personal wavers. Miller did not. The other four negotiated with and won concessions from Fitzgerald. Miller did not. Only Miller claimed a right to defy the grand jury. In other words, Miller left no wiggle room for compromise on any grounds and set up a situation wherein Judge Thomas Hogan, a proponent of journalists’ right to protect confidential sources, had no alternative but to jail her.

Could it be that Miller, given a choice between subjecting herself to questions by the grand jury that might have delved into her own possible role in the outing of Valerie Plame, or going off to jail, chose the latter while camouflaging her decision with speeches about the need to protect a free press?

While the Iraqi insurgency rages on, it appears all is suddenly well in Baghdad.
The good news was announced Friday in a video-teleconference interview from Baghdad between Maj. Gen. William Webster, head of the 30,000 U.S. and foreign troops and 15,000 Iraqi soldiers known as Task Force Baghdad, and reporters at the Pentagon. Webster announced yesterday that insurgents apparently are no longer capable of carrying out more than sporadic attacks in Baghdad after a seven-week security crackdown. Webster told the press (see for example “General Says Insurgency Weakened in Baghdad” in Saturday’s Washington Post)”the ability of these insurgents to conduct sustained high-intensity operations, as they did last year — we’ve mostly eliminated that.”
Interesting. It would appear that Maj. Gen. Webster is getting bad intelligence. Perhaps he should consult the internet.

According to the web site Iraq Coalition Casualty Count we suffered at least eighteen American deaths in Baghdad during the month of June, the fourth highest monthly total of the war, and the worst U.S. Baghdad casualty count since January, 2005 when twenty-four fell. Casualty figures among Iraqi civilians, military and police are not available, but based on news reports one would imagine they were also on the high side.

Meanwhile, perusing the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count site and Google News might lead one to a conclusion, contrary to the soothing words of the Major General, that all is not necessarily quiet on the Baghdad front.

It is indeed heartening to know that all is quiet in the Iraqi capitol. Thanks for the good news Maj. Gen. Webster.

I keep reading about how Judith Miller is upholding some noble journalistic principle by refusing to divulge her sources to the grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame leak. The problem is she has invoked no such privilege.
It has been widely reported in the media that several other journalists were also subpeonaed to appear before the grand jury, and most of them reached an accommodation with prosecutor Fitzgerald whereby they would appear but would not be required to divulge their sources.

Miller apparently sought no such arrangement. She simply thumbed her nose at the subpeona as if she enjoyed some special privelege to defy the grand jury entirely. Most people would classify that behavior as contempt of court regardless of the merits behind Miller’s stated determination to protect the principle of confidentiality.

The question people ought to be asking is why doesn’t Miller answer the subpeona and then simply invoke a onstitutional privilege if asked about her sources? The very worst that could happen to her is she would be cited for contempt and would be no worse off than she is now.

I would respectfully suggest that Miller has a different agenda, and her public stance and “selfless martyrdom” are a smokescreen. It has been widely rumored (and hinted at by Fitzgerald) that Miller herself is a target of the grand jury probe. It has even been suggested that it was Miller who alerted the White House on the day that Joe Wilson’s New York Times op-ed piece came out, that Valerie Plame was really Mrs. Valerie Plame Wilson. Obviously there is nothing stopping Miller from answering the subpeona and invoking a constitutional privelege if asked about news sources. On the other hand, she would not be able to invoke such a privelege if asked about her own complicity in the outing of Valerie Plame.

Instead of clamoring to defend Miller’s defiance of her subpeona, her defenders ought to be encouraging her to appear before the grand jury and invoke her claim of privilege there rather than in front of TV cameras. Personally I think the lady doth protest too much. Does she have something to hide?

Early reports out of London yesterday morning indicated that Scotland Yard was alerted to an impending terror attack shortly before it occurred, and that a warning to the Israeli Embassy resulted in Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in London for a conference, remaining in his hotel room instead of attending a meeting.
Below is an example of an early report from Israel National News that states in pretty unambiguous terms that “Scotland Yard had intelligence warnings of the attacks a short time before they occurred. “

and a similar AP story:

A Google News search turns up many similar stories, but they are all datedlined early yesterday morning except for a lone evening report from Al Jazeera. . They were soon replaced by new reports like this one from Haaretz:

But here is where it really starts to get interesting. The Information Clearing House
web site includes the following headline:

Scotland Yard has denied reports they were warned of an attack by Israel

But when you click on the link you get an article with a totally different headline and no mention whatsoever of Israel or Scotland Yard.:

Chances are this is all the result of an erroneous early report, but it is curious nevertheless.

Back on February 26, 1998 a lengthy piece appeared in the New York Times:

How Iraq’s Biological Weapons Program Came to Light
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and JUDITH MILLER
The New York Times
February 26, 1998

The piece sought to document Saddam Hussein’s ongoing WMD program, and it coincided, interestingly enough, with the efforts of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) to re-direct U.S. foreign policy toward, among other things, “regime change” in Iraq.

That same day a Cornell University Professor, Francis Boyle, who had earlier authored the “Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act” of 1989, widely disseminated an e-mail expressing his frustration with the article.  Not only did he disagree with several aspects of it, but Judith Miller had contacted him while working on the piece and had solicited his input.  Apparently his input did not provide what Miller wanted to hear, and none of it  made it into the article.

Below is what Professor Boyle had to say about Judith Miller and the New York Times in his February 26, 1998 e-mail:

I guess not much has changed in the past seven years for Judith Miller, who apparently prefers not to confuse readers of the New York Times with objectivity or facts.

(The link to the e-mail also includes the entire Times news article).

Here is a link to the PNAC open letter to Bill Clinton that ran as a paid ad in several newspapers and magazines a month earlier:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Cross-filed at Kos

Cross Posted at Kos

The Kos post sourced by SusanHu certainly does raise some interesting questions about Judith Miller.  At this point it would seem that there are more questions than answers, but it is starting to look as if Judith Miller’s role in this developing story is much more profound, perhaps even sinister, than that of an honest journalist being pursued for her confidential sources by a by a dogged prosecutor. MORE BELOW:
Fitzgerald has long been criticized for going after Miller, who, after all, never wrote a story about the Plame affair.  I always assumed, as did others I’m sure, that Miller filed a story, but that the Times declined to run it (after all, outing a CIA agent for no good reason is generally frowned upon by the media, especially when the outing is being done by administration officials in the furtherance of a political agenda).  Like every one else I assumed Fitzgerald was after Miller’s sources.  The new element in this to me is that:

Miller apparently had some contact with someone at the White House on or about July 6, 2003, the day Joe Wilson’s op-ed piece appeared in the New York Times revealing that he had investigated the yellow-cake rumors for the CIA and found them to be untrue.  We also know from recent news stories that the Times is not in a position to do what Time, Inc. did relative to Cooper, namely turn over its reporter’s (Miller’s) notes.  That is because the Times says they do not have Miller’s notes.  To me that suggests that Miller never filed a story after all.  Surely if she did she would have had to supply background and documentation to her editors if the story were to be considered for publication.  So if Miller never filed a story, just what role did she play in this affair?  Why was she in contact with an unnamed “government official” regarding this story on or about July 6th?

The Downing Street Memos and Minutes prove what we really knew all along: that the White House was “fixing” the intelligence in order to justify going to war with Saddam.  The major element of that fix was a pr campaign to convince the public that Saddam had a major WMD program.  More than any one else, Judith Miller was the primary instrument of that pr campaign, landing story after story prominently in the pages of the New York Times (often on Page One) seeming to make the case for the Bush administration that Saddam was a genuine threat.  We know, thanks to leaked e-mails revealed by Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post, that one of her primary sources was Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, darling of the Neocons who merited the coveted seat next to Laura Bush at the 2004 State of the Union address.

So if Miller did not file a story but was in touch with a “government official,” presumably in the White House, when the Plame story was being leaked, just what was her role?  Did she aid and abet the White House in getting this story into print?  One thing we know for certain is that Karl Rove told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews immediately after Robert Novak broke the Plame story that Valerie Plame was “fair game.”  While that conversation, revealed by Matthews and never denied by Rove, does not prove Rove was involved in the leak, it certainly proves he was in the loop.

All of this brings to mind another story that Judith Miller may have played a larger role in than her readers realize.  You may recall the story of David Kelly, the British scientist and expert in WMD, who committed suicide in July 2003 while being investigated as the possible source for a BBC story that suggested (of all things) that the Blair government had doctored the intelligence about Saddam’s WMD programs.

Judith Miller filed a story about Kelly on July 21, 2003:

 
Scientist Was the ‘Bane of Proliferators’.  The article painted a sympathetic portrait of Kelly and hinted that he believed Saddam did indeed maintain a WMD program despite the fact that no evidence of it had yet been found.  Nothing in the article suggested that Miller had had contact with Kelly, nor that she had ever known him.  Her story concluded with this passage:

Thanks to news articles written by others we know more about those e-mails than Judith Miller revealed to readers of The New York Times.

Jamie Macaskill, for example, filed a story in The London Sunday Mail on July 20, 2003 entitled: Dark Actors Playing Games:

In fact, Judith Miller apparently knew David Kelly rather well.  She had quoted him in several of her earlier articles going back to 1998, and according to the Globe article referenced above, Kelly had helped her write her book about Weapons of Mass Destruction published several years before.

One would have thought that Miller would have regarded her relationship with Kelly as well as her contact with him just before his death as “scoop” material.  Instead she failed to let her readers even know that she had enjoyed a long and close association with him. Even more odd, she left out the provocative e-mail he had written her just
prior to his death while writing about a more innocuous one sent to an “associate.”  

I find Miller’s behavior in the Kelly story rather odd, to say the least.  Unlike the Plame story, Miller did ultimately write about Kelly, but she camouflaged her own involvement and left much of what she knew out of the piece.   I can’t pretend to know what role Miller played in the Plame saga, but I am now wondering whether she is being looked at as a possible accessory, rather than as a  journalist who is protecting her sources.  If that is the case, her efforts to rally the journalistic community to her aid represent a cynical charade.

Just for the hell of it I decided to run a word check of Bush’s speech to see if demonstrated his usual diversity of vocabulary.  I wasn’t disappointed.
Bush invoked the word “terror” or a variation of it 34 times in his 28-minute speech (that’s an average of once every 49 seconds if you’re counting).

Moving right along:

“Freedom” was mentioned 21 times

“mission” 12 times

“September 11th” was invoked 5 times

“Bin Laden” was mentioned twice

“Al Qaeda” only merited a single mention this time around.

Funny, “weapons of mass destruction” merited nary a mention.

A new Pew Global Attitudes Survey out yesterday is getting a fair amount of news coverage, much of it pointing out that our image is improving somewhat in some aspects and in some countries or regions.  On the whole, though, Americans can take little solace from this far-ranging poll.  The details are not pretty:
— Beginning with whether the U.S. is viewed favorably or unfavorably, We are viewed most favorably in India where 71% of those surveyed have a favorable opinion of the U.S.(up from 54% in the Summer of 2002).  The Poles like us too. 62% view us favorably as a nation, though that number is down from 79% in 2002.  More Canadians (59%), Brits (55%), and Russians (52%) have a more favorable opinion of the U.S. than an unfavorable one (though the favorables have dropped precipitously in all three countries since 2000). In every other other country surveyed the United States’ unfavorable rating exceeded the favorable rating.  Our favorables ranged from 45% in the Netherlands to 23% in Turkey and Pakistan and 21% in Jordan.  Interestingy enough, when “Americans” was substituted for “United States,”  our favorable ratings improved considerably with the exception of Turkey and Pakistan where only 23% and 22% respectively had a favorable opinion of Americans.

— When people with an unfavorable opinion of the U.S. were asked if it was “mostly because of President George W. Bush” or “more a general problem with America” Bush was the primary culpret, hands down.  Bush was the primary reason among 54% of Canadians; 56% of Brits; 63% of French; 65% of Germans; 76% in Spain; 63% in the Netherlands; 41% in Turkey; 51% in Pakistan; 47% in Lebanon; 43% in Indonesia.  This was not the case everywhere though.  In Russia only 30% blamed Bush; in Poland 27%; in Jordan 22%; in China 16%.

— Most countries think the United States has a “go it alone” attitude when making international policy decisions.  Only 19% of Canadians believe the U.S. considers the interests of other countries; 32% of the British; 18% of the French; 38% of the Germans; 19% in Spain; 20% of the Dutch; 21% of Russians; 14% of the Turks; 39% in Pakistan; 35% of the Lebanese; 17% of the Jordanians. In India, on the other hand, 63% believe the U.S. does consider the interests of other nations.  Ditto in Indonesia (59%); and China (53%).

— The U.S.-led efforts to fight terrorism are a mixed bag.  More people favor it than oppose it in Great Britain, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Russia, Poland, India, and Indonesia.  The reverse is true in Canada, Spain, Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, and Jordan.

— The Iraqi election led to people having a more favorable opinion of the U.S. in Canada, Great Britain, Germany, The Netherlands, and Poland.  They had the opposite effect in France, Spain, Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Lebanon, Jordan and Indonesia.

— The re-election of George W. Bush was immensely unpopular in most countries surveyed.  Only in Poland did Bush’s election generate a more favorable opinion verus unfavorable for the U.S. The highest unfavorables were 77% in Germany; 75% in Canada; 74% in France; 72% in the Netherlands; 62% in Turkey and Great Britain; 60% in Spain; 57% in Lebanon; and 52% in Indonesia.

— On the other hand, U.S. aid to tsunami victems in Southeast Asia improved our image dramatically everywhere, most of all in Indonesia.

— President Bush’s call for more democracy in the Middle East resonated favorably in Canada, Great Britain, Germany, Spain, The Netherlands, Poland, and India; negatively in France, Russia, Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia.

— According to the poll, certain characteristics are associated with Americans.  We are considered hardworking (85% hold that view, ranking us second behind the French); Inventive (81% in first place); Honest (63% again in first place).  On the less positive side, 70% consider us greedy (first place); 49% see us as violent (7th place behind Canada, France, Spain, The Netherlands, Russia, and Great Britain);   35% think us rude (5th place behind Canada, Russia, Spain, and France); 39% think we are immoral (2nd behind only Russia).

— 63% of Americans would like to see us remain the world’s only superpower.  Not so the other countries surveyed.  The majority in every other country would like to see another superpower become as powerful as we are.  In descending order the numbers were France: 85%; Jordan: 82%; Turkey and India: 81%; Russia: 74%; Indonesia: 79%; China: 74%; Germany, Pakistan and Lebanon: 73%; The Netherlands: 71%; Poland: 68%; Spain: 69%; Great Britain: 58%;  Canada: 51%

— When Confidence in three world leaders (Bush/United States; Blair/Great Britain; Chirac/France) was measured, George Bush came in first in only one country: India.  He came in last in Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, The Netherlands, Russia, Turkey, Jordan, and Indonesia. In Poland he was rated second, ahead of France’s Chirac, but behind Tony Blair. In Pakistan only 7% had confidence in Bush, but that landed him ahead of Tony Blair’s 7%.  Even in the United States George Bush came in second behind Tony Blair.

—  Of Countries that sent troops to Iraq, a majority thought it was the right decision only in the U.S. (54%) and The Netherlands (59%);  The majority thought it was the wrong decision in Great Britain (53%), Spain (69%), and Poland (67%).

— Among the countries that did not send troops to Iraq, a large majority (usually over 80%) in every country felt that was the right decision

—  Only in the United States(49% vs 40%) and India (45% vs 26% ) do the majority surveyed think the war in Iraq has made the world a safer place.  Large majorities in France (70% vs 23%), Spain (68% vs 13%), Jordan (66% vs 26%),The Netherlands (62% vs 31%), Turkey (59% vs 14%),Lebanon (59% vs 16%), Germany (58% vs 28%), Canada (53% vs 37%), Pakistan (53% vs 9%), Russia (49% vs 17%), China (57% vs 8%),Indonesia (50% vs 13%), Poland (48% vs 27%), and Great Britain (47% vs 39%) believe the war has made the world a more dangerous place.

— Majorities in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, and The Netherlands believe the Janbuary elections in Iraq will bring more stability.

— Majorities in Russia, Poland, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Lebanon, Jordan, Indonesia and China believe the Iraq elections will bring less stabilty.

— Apparently the United States is no longer considered the land of opportunity. Only in India did a pluraty of those surveyed choose the United States as the country they would most want to emigrate to if they left their own country.  Pluralities in Canada and Great Britain chose Australia; Pluralities in Spain and Poland chose Great Britain; Pluralities in France and China chose Canada; Pluralities in Russia and Turkey chose Germany; Pluralities in Lebanon chose France; Pluralities in Indonesia chose Japan; Australia and Canada were tied as country of choice to the Germans and the Dutch; Jordanians were split between Great Britain, Canada and France.

— Majorities surveyed in every country in Western Europe believe that Western Europe should take a more independent approach to security and diplomatic affairs from the United States.

— The U.S. gets generally low grades when it comes to protecting the World’s environment.  23% of the Lebanese trust us followed by 16% of Canadians; 14% of the Polish; 10% of Jordanians; 8% of the British; 7% in Spain, Russia, Indonesia, and China; 6% of the French and Lebanese; 5% of the Dutch; 4% in Pakistan; and 2% in Germany.

— Majorities in Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Jordan, and Indonesia believe it would be a good thing if China were to become as powerful militarily as the U.S.

It would appear that we have some fence-mending to do!