Meltdown

A number of fairly incredible things are happening in Washington---where it's hotter than hell in more ways than one. The Democrats held a forum on the Plame affair that revealed just how serious this is, the Bush administration has stopped release of new Iraqi prison torture photos and wants a law to prevent similar photos from Guantanamo and elsewhere, reports have surfaced of Cheney ordering a plan to attack Iran that includes use of nuclear weapons, and the Patriot Act is very close to being made permanent with virtually no public debate.

We’ll try to deal with each of these separately, so for now, some highlights of the Plame hearings.

This was an unofficial forum assembled on Friday morning by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), co-chaired by Dorgan and Congressman Henry Waxman. Some eloquent testimony was given and some action was proposed, but perhaps the quote of the day is this one, from former CIA operations officer Jim Marcinkowski:" Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear: Politics in this country does, in fact, trump national security."

Representative Henry Waxman provided context. "The disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as an undercover CIA agent is indefensible on many levels. It was an indefensible betrayal of her and her family. It was an indefensible affront to the men and women who are on the front lines of defending America. And it was an indefensible breach of our national security."

He then related the case directly to the Iraq war.

"And it is an issue deeply personal to me. One of the hardest votes that I cast was to authorize the war in Iraq. Like many others, I was torn. But in the end, I sided with the president because of the administration's insistence that Iraq was on the verge of nuclear capability. Today, we know the truth. I was misled, as were the American people. And it was Valerie Plame Wilson's husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, who helped expose what really happened."

"Well, today's New York Times fills in another piece of the puzzle," Waxman continued."In October 2002, CIA Director George Tenet personally called the deputy national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, to stop President Bush from using the uranium claim in his speech in Cincinnati. Around the same time, the CIA sent the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, a memo warning her not to rely on the uranium evidence."

He indicated (as did others later) that this contradicts claims that the Bush White House did not know the claim about Niger and uranium was false before the State of the Union.

In speaking about accountability for the leak, Waxman said, "There is an executive order -- Executive Order 12958 -- that governs protection of national security information. Under this executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation to take appropriate and prompt corrective action to address the leaks of classified information."

"There's a special standard for Karl Rove: There will be no questions asked and no accountability," Waxman observed. Then he zeroed in on another action that needs to be taken: a full congressional inquiry.

Not only is the president ignoring his obligation, but Congress is refusing to do its job." Waxman said. "There is a simple way to get to the bottom of this scandal: The Republican Congress can hold a hearing as early as next week with Mr. Rove. For the sake of all the men and women who are defending America's freedom, Republicans in Congress should join us in asking questions and getting answers for the American people.”

“They have refused to hold these hearings, and that is why we're doing what we can today, but we can't subpoena Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, and they would refuse to come to appear before us. They would have to come if Congress did its job as a separate and independent branch of government and exercised its oversight responsibility for the protection our nation."

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)asked her own questions about the extent of this act:

"Aside from Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Colin Powell and Ari Fleischer, who else in the White House had access to the classified memo?"

"Given that so many of the president's men had access to the memo, it is incumbent upon Congress, the special prosecutor and the American people to ask the following difficult question: What did President Bush know about the Valerie Plame leak and when did he know it?

Is it possible that he and Vice President Cheney, along with most of Bush's inner circle, could have known about this plot to exact retribution on Ambassador Wilson at the expense of national security?

Is it possible that President Bush or Vice President Cheney could have been involved themselves?

These are tough, serious questions that must be addressed."


Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) was equally pointed:

"Nobody died in Watergate. And over 1,750 of our sons and daughters are dead in the sands of Iraq. And I have come here to show my respect for our intelligence covert agents and Foreign Service officers who risk their lives to get the truth to the American people."

Senator Dorgan then asked the panel before him for their statements. Larry Johnson had introduced Colonel Patrick Lang as his mentor, and Senator Dorgan added more of his resume.

Col. Patrick Lang--retired senior officer of U.S. military intelligence, Vietnam veteran, a Middle East specialist--spoke of the gathering of intelligence from individuals (so-called human intelligence, or HUMINT) as especially crucial in stopping terrorists, for they offer few opportunities for other kinds of surveillance---they have no missile silos to photograph from satellites, etc. Speaking of human intelligence he said, "it is a peculiarity of this kind of war that that is exactly the kind of intelligence that you have to have. "He suggested the U.S. hasn't done very well in that area so far, but its this area of intelligence that the Plame outing has directly damaged. He called it "an assault on the ability of the United States" to perform human intelligence.

"Why would that be? It's because HUMINT is about human beings. It's about one person, an American person, a case officer in the parlance of the trade, causing some foreign person to trust him enough and to trust his unit and to trust the United States enough to put his life, his fortune and, indeed, his sacred honor in many cases into the hands of this case officer and the American intelligence unit that stands behind this case officer."

Lang was highly persuasive in talking about the reality of what human intelligence gathering means. He even gave it a religious dimension.

“It's all about trust; it's completely about trust. It's about -- I happen to have done a good deal of this kind of work in my life. And the moment in which some person, whether he's an ambassador or a Montagnard in the hills of Vietnam with filed teeth, decides that he's going to trust you enough so that he's going to believe that you will protect him in every way in doing what he is doing, which is extremely dangerous to him and his family and to everyone else, is a magic moment, indeed. It's almost sacramental in a lot of ways, really.

And it imposes on the case officer and the unit behind him in the United States the kind of obligations that are as serious in some ways as the seal of the confessional, really. I mean, I'm a Catholic; I understand exactly what that means."

"And the obligation to protect this person is absolute, in fact. And it's not only absolute from the point of view of morality; it's absolute from the point of view of practicality as well, because if within a practicing clandestine intelligence unit the case officers believe that their superiors will not protect the identity of their sources or their own identity, in fact, in doing things which are dangerous and difficult, then a, kind of, circle of doubt begins to spread, like throwing a rock into the water.

And it spreads in such a way so that if an intelligence service that belongs to a particular country comes to be thought generally in the world as an organization that does not protect its own, does not protect its foreign assets, then the obvious is true in that people are not going to accept recruitment, are not going to work for you. And the smarter they are, the better placed they are, the better educated they are, the less likely they are to accept recruitment and to work for you if they believe that you are not going to fight in the last ditch to protect their identities. And so, this is all completely about trust."

After ex-CIA Larry Johnson was Jim Marcinkowski, who had a rich and varied background in both intelligence (working at different times for the CIA and FBI) and in law enforcement, as a prosecutor and defense attorney. He also was once the president of the Michigan Young Republicans.

He explained how exposing Valerie Plame sent a message that U.S. promises can’t be trusted, heard loud and clear by those overseas who might otherwise help American efforts. That message is made even louder by continued inaction.

“The problem with a refusal to accept responsibility by senior government officials is ongoing, causes greater damage to our national security as well as our ability to collect human intelligence. But the problem of inaction by the government lies not only with government officials, but also with the media, the commentators and other apologists who have no clue as to the workings of the intelligence community."

"Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear: Politics in this country does, in fact, trump national security."

"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."

He addressed what should have been done.

"Those who take pride in their political ability to divert the issue from the fundamental truth ought to be prepared to take their share of responsibility for the continuing damage done to our national security. When this unprecedented act first occurred, the president could have immediately demanded the resignation of all persons even tangentially involved. Or at a minimum, he could have suspended the security clearances of those persons and placed them on administrative leave. Such methods are routine across the country in every police department, and every American citizen understands that."

There was a surreal moment later when Senator Dorgan was asking Larry Johnson a question about the effect of this affair on the operation Valerie Plame was part of, which was to gather information on possible chemical, biological and nuclear weapons threats to the U.S. Johnson’s answer was interrupted by Dorgan trying to find out from security whether in fact the building was being evacuated, for an apparent bomb threat.

It wasn't, but Johnson's answer may have been lost in the shuffle. But it was on point: "This problem almost certainly damaged intelligence assets that were connected with providing the United States information about rogue states and terrorist organizations trying to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear material. And that goes to the very heart of some of the threats that we face today."

White Hot House News

Earth is not the only planet that’s getting hot: Bushworld is getting scorched around the edges, and the flames may be making their way towards the center.

The latest shoe to drop is the report, first from a blog reporter and now from Bloomberg News, that because the Grand Jury testimony of Karl Rove and Lewis Libby (v.p. Cheney’s chief of staff) on how they learned the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson (they said from reporters) was contradicted by the testimony of the reporters, they may be facing perjury charges.

Other reports suggest perjury may be the least of their worries. A number of stories in the Washington Post and elsewhere quote sources saying that Valerie Plame’s name was contained in a classified State Department document that White House aides were seen reading on Air Force One, that the mention of her name was annotated with the word “secret,” and that the entire document may have been classified “Top Secret,” which would make revealing its contents a serious federal crime. Since neither Rove nor Libby was on the plane for the trip in question, there may be other names of interest to the Grand Jury.

Republican majorities in the House and Senate are ignoring all of this, and refusing to hold hearings. Democrats are holding their own informal inquiry, but this is becoming a National Security issue. It's going to be more and more difficult for Republicans to continue ignoring their constitutional responsibilities, especially if constituents start to remind them.

Rove v Rove

The action was intense inside the Beltway and its media all weekend: columnists and anti-Bush partisans screaming scandal and infamy, pundits and pro-Bushers screaming that the real villain is the supposed victim, the outed CIA agent and her husband.

But all that happened at the White House Monday was Bush making inoperative his previous pledge, or (if you're a Busher) clarifying it, by saying he'd fire anyone who was convicted of criminal leaking of classified information.

Some of those who've been obsessed with nothing else in the political game expressed surprise that Rove still had a job as of Monday. But that quick an exit really shouldn't have been expected.

The Bushers had to make various calculations. How close is the prosecutor and Grand Jury to actually indicting anyone? That's a timeline they have to watch very carefully. Another calculation is: how is this going over with the public? Who is winning the spin wars?

They got some answers to that second question, and from their point of view, it ain't pretty.

The first poll, from ABC News came out. On the question of whether Rove should be fired if he leaked classified information, two-thirds of those surveyed said Yes. That's 83% of the Democrats, 74% of the Independents, and 71% of Republicans.

On the question of whether the Bushers are sincerely cooperating with the investigation, only 47% of Republicans think so. 90% of Democrats and 75% of Independents think they aren't.

So it's now pretty likely that Rove will resign. What we don't know is how they're choosing up sides in the White House. If they're still all on the same page, they'll be working on the timing of Rove's resignation. That will partly depend on what the Grand Jury is doing. But it wouldn't be too surprising if on a late Friday afternoon sometime in the next three weeks, Rove announces that he's leaving to spend more time with his family. Or he might even say it's to take pressure off the Prez and prove his own innocence.

But what if there's civil war going on in there? Cheney people against Bush people, and are there Rove people? One sure sign of serious conflict is if Bush actually fires Rove. That would be like the first shot of a political war, and maybe an insurgency...And if nothing happens, that could also mean pitched battles in the White House.

But as Frank Rich and others said over the weekend, and as you've read here before that, Rove V. Rove is a sideshow. There is much more at stake.

Some of that is signaled by the New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh which says that the Bushers poured money into their favored candidate to fix the Iraq election. The kind of activities alleged---voter intimidation, fraud, etc.---sounds quite familiar. From Ohio in 2004. The hand of Rove is everywhere.

"Dr. Memory?"
"Y-e-sss"
"Do you remember the future?"
"Yeesss"
"Well, forget it!"
---The Firesign Theatre: "I Think We're All Bozos on This Bus"


This past week, from July 12th to the 15th, a global Technology, Entertainment and Design conference was held in Oxford, England to consider the future, including the roles of politics, the environment and social issues in shaping 21st century life.

Among the more than 300 participating scientists, technologists, thinkers, designers, musicians and playwrights were Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, X-Prize founder Peter Diamandis and Nokia director of design strategy Marko Ahtisaari.

From the fairly sparse reports (mostly from the BBC), this conference seems to represent the usual confusion of which futurism is heir to. There seem to be a lot of technologists plugging their products (as well as plugging them in, except for the wireless of course) and authors flogging their books. Every expert ignores the field of every other expert. And one biotechnologist extols the complexity of life while proposing to apply reductionist techniques to create more artificially.

Though held in Europe for the first time, this has been a high profile event in the U.S.: the first TED conference saw the unveiling of the Apple Macintosh, the Sony compact disc, and mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot's demonstration of mapping coastlines with his discovery of fractals. Bill Gates, architect Frank Behry and musician Herbie Hancock have been featured speakers.

In advance of the event, Oxford announced the formation of its 21st Century School, created from an endowment by computer pioneer James Martin, to study issues such as climate change, technology, disease and aging societies.

"Our century is very, very special, " Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, told the conference. "It is the first where humans can change themselves... Whatever happens in this uniquely crucial century will resonate in the remote future and perhaps far beyond the Earth."

In reviewing recent scientific achievements and challenges, such as genetics and biotechnology, and the conundrums of recent physics, Rees felt that the greatest challenge is posed by the science of complexity.

Rees, a cosmologist, has not been particularly optimistic about the human future. Playing on the Churchillian phrase 'our finest hour', his recent book is called "Our Final Hour." He warns that technology is creating "as escalating variety of potential disasters," from climate change to artificially created epidemics and in the far future, abuses of robotics and nanotechnology.

At the conference he emphasized the human potential. "If you represent the Earth's lifetime in a single year, the 21st Century would be a quarter of a second in June... We are not even halfway through our allotted time on Earth before the Sun itself burns out."

Another speaker, Craig Venter, described the sheer
amount of life on this planet of which we are utterly ignorant.
On an ocean voyage around the world Venter took a seawater sample every 200 miles, and found new species of life each time. In one place, a single barrel contained 1.3 million previously unknown genes, and 50,000 new species.

Yet the lesson Venter drew from this was not appreciation or preservation, but the need to try to create artificial life. "Only by trying to build it will we truly understand it," he says.

It seems Rees' fears are well founded.

According to reports, this year’s tech gadgets seemed to emphasize new uses of wireless technologies. But several speakers also emphasized that the silicon based lifestyle is exceeding the speed of life, and that the explosion of confusing, trivial if not meaningless choices of tech-enabled consumerism may not be all good. There are studies to back some of this up, such as those showing productivity dropping under the onslaught of email, and housework actually taking more time now than a century ago.

Asked about the digital media future, one expert predicted “fifty years of chaos.” With these folks, who could predict anything else?

UNRAVELGATE

A third rate burglary. A bungled leak to discredit a political enemy.

All the pieces may not tumble this time, but it's becoming clearer how they might. And how this may not be as big as Watergate---it may be bigger, and deeper.

Because for all the threats and wounds to the Constitution, and all the daunting abuses of power in Watergate, no one died as a direct result.

This time, people are dying all over the world. Americans and Iraqis in Iraq. Londoners in London. People in Turkey, in Afghanistan, and no one knows where next.

Justin Raimondo writes in anti-war.com: This isn't about Rove. It's about a cabal of war hawks inside the administration

He suggest Rove may even have been an unwitting accomplice, though just as involved in the stench.

Now Frank Rich in the New York Times adds this:
...we shouldn't get hung up on him - or on most of the other supposed leading figures in this scandal thus far. Not Matt Cooper or Judy Miller or the Wilsons or the bad guy everyone loves to hate, the former CNN star Robert Novak. This scandal is not about them in the end, any more than Watergate was about Dwight Chapin and Donald Segretti or Woodward and Bernstein. It is about the president of the United States. It is about a plot that was hatched at the top of the administration and in which everyone else, Mr. Rove included, are at most secondary players.

Follow the Uranium - New York Times

This scandal is about Dick Cheney and the neocons, it's about President Bush and all who led America into war under false pretenses, which included lying and covering up those lies, and subverting the very institutions of government they are sworn to uphold and protect.

The lies that the Administration told to invade Iraq and create the chaos that now makes that country a violent incubator for terror all over the world. The violence is growing worse.

Ten suicide bombings in a single day in Iraq. The total number of suicide bombings in the world over the past twenty years was fewer than 400, until this year. In this year, there have been more than 500 in Iraq alone.

This was a war to bring democracy to Iraq. Now a poll in Iraq taken for coalition forces shows this bit of democratic sentiment:

Those who strongly support U.S. and coalition forces: 15%
those who support the insurgents 45%

Watergate was a test of American institutions and the courage of those who understood the stakes. Will they---will we-- step up this time? Who will take responsibility?