THIS FAR AND NO FURTHER
A Timeline of Events Surrounding the Radical Right's Attempt to Subvert American Democracy
Written and Compiled by Black Max
February 2007, Week Three
Page Three
"Operation Iranian Freedom" ready to go, say British military officials
- February 19: US military planning for a major conventional war with Iran is complete, and could be implemented any time Bush and his officials choose, writes Dan Plesch, a research associate at the School of Oriental and African Studies.
War with Iran
Plesch's sources are British military officials who tell him, "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq. The planning envisions the destruction of virtually all of Iran's military infrastructure in one massive blitzkrieg. The plans, for what the military calls "Operation Iranian Freedom," involve the US Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force, and have been in the works for four years. Bases have been built, including three large bases in Azerbaijan, troops and equipment have been emplaced, and incoming CENTCOM head Admiral James Fallon has inherited computerized plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term). A day after Plesch's report, the BBC concurs, reporting, "[D]iplomatic sources have told the BBC that...senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran. That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say. BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon -- which it denies. Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighboring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran." - The sending of a second aircraft carrier group into the Persian Gulf is only one element of the plan, say the British. The US Navy can send up to six carrier groups into battle at a month's notice. Currently, the two groups already in place, anchored by the carriers USS Stennis and USS Eisenhower could be quickly joined by three more, anchored by the USS Reagan, the USS Truman, and the USS Roosevelt, with the USS Nimitz group not far behind. Each carrier force includes hundreds of cruise missiles. And while the Army is bogged down in Iraq and largely broken, the Marines are not. Several Marine forces are assembling, say the British, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and, yes, hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission, according to the British, since the Iranian revolution of 1979. Currently, the Marines maintain two carrier groups in the Gulf, anchored by the USS Boxer and the USS Bataan, with two other carrier groups, the USS Kearsarge and the USS Bonhomme Richard nearby. Three other groups, anchored by the USS Peleliu, the USS Wasp, and the USS Iwo Jima, are ready to join them; currently they are at station near Bahrain.
- The British note that Dick Cheney is quite enamored of the Marines. Under his auspices, Marine generals hold the top positions at NATO, in the Pentagon, and are in charge of the US nuclear arsenal. No Marine has held any of these posts before; traditionally, the top nuclear job went either to a commander of the Navy's Trident submarines or of the Air Force's bombers and missiles. Today, all these forces follow the orders of a Marine, General James Cartwright, and are integrated into a "Global Strike" plan which places strategic forces on permanent 12-hour readiness. "Global Strike" means that, without any obvious signal, what was done to Serbia and Lebanon can be done overnight to the whole of Iran, writes Plesch; such an attack would probably not be reported until it was already well underway. (New Statesman, BBC)
- February 19: An obscure provision in the recent defense budget bill passed in October 2006 makes it much easier for Bush to declare martial law in the United States, warns the New York Times.
Attack on civil liberties
The provision weakens two key bulwarks of American liberty: posse comitatus and the Insurrection Act of 1807. Posse comitatus is a law passed in the aftermath of the Civil War that prohibits the use of the US military in domestic situations except in extreme situations. The Insurrection Act provides the few exceptions to posse comitatus, and limits the president's use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights. But the new provision upsets this balance, giving the president the ability to use the military as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any "other condition." In essence, the law gives Bush the ability to deploy the military inside the US for any reason he chooses. - The Times writes, "Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation's governors. There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation's governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate." (New York Times)
- February 19: In a speech commemorating the birthday of George Washington, Bush not only compares himself with the illustrious first president, but equates the Iraq occupation and the "global war on terror" with the American Revolution -- two comparisons that few but the most hardline Bush supporters find hard to swallow.
George W. Bush
"Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life," says Bush during a speech at Washington's home in Mount Vernon. "And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone." He calls Washington "the first George W," makes a few jokes at Washington's expense -- "[h]e doesn't look a day over 275 years old" -- and then continues with the comparisons. (Washington Post) - February 19: The Libby trial is casting a harsh light on the office of Dick Cheney, and upon Cheney himself.
Lewis Libby perjury trial
The New York Times observes, "The trial against Mr. Libby has centered on a narrow case of perjury, with days of sparring between the defense and prosecution lawyers over the numbing details of three-year-old conversations between White House officials and journalists. But a close reading of the testimony and evidence in the case is more revelatory, bringing into bolder relief a portrait of a vice president with free rein to operate inside the White House as he saw fit in order to debunk the charges of a critic of the war in Iraq. The evidence in the trial shows Vice President Dick Cheney and Mr. Libby, his former chief of staff, countermanding and even occasionally misleading colleagues at the highest levels of Mr. Bush's inner circle as the two pursued their own goal of clearing the vice president's name in connection with flawed intelligence used in the case for war." The article continues, "While others on the White House team were primarily concerned about Mr. Bush, the evidence has shown that Mr. Libby had a more acute concern about his own boss. Unbeknownst to their colleagues, according to testimony, the two carried out a covert public relations campaign to defend not only the case for war but also Mr. Cheney's connection to the flawed intelligence. In doing so, they used some of the most sensitive and classified intelligence data available, information others on Mr. Bush's team was not yet prepared to put to use in a public fight against a war critic." - The Financial Times adds, "Even if Mr Libby is convicted, questions will remain about Mr Cheney's role in directing his aide to rebut Mr Wilson, and his intervention to force [Ari] Fleischer to make a public statement exonerating Mr Libby." (New York Times, Financial Times/MSNBC)
"Now in 2007, the Bush administration is accusing Iran of interfering in Iraq. When Saddam was in power, [Iran and Iraq] were natural enemies, but now the US has invaded and is accusing Iran of becoming overly powerful in Iraq, when it had been a natural enemy before the US invasion. That seems tragically ironic." -- Buzzflash, in an interview with historian and author Barry Lando, February 20
- February 20: Two days after the Washington Post published a special report on the hideous conditions endured by outpatient soldiers at the Army's Walter Reed Hospital, the Army, embarrassed by the firestorm of controversy and criticism in the media and the public, announces they are finally beginning to fix the dilapidated, roach- and rodent-infested living quarters in Building 18.
Walter Reed scandal
(See the February 18 item above.) That building was the focus of the report by reporters Dana Priest and Anne Hull. The facility's commander, Major General George Weightman, says that after the report was published, Army staff members inspected each of the 54 rooms at the building and discovered that outstanding repair orders for half the rooms had not been completed. He says that mold removal has begun on several rooms and that holes in ceilings, stained carpets and leaking faucets are being fixed. Weightman adds that a broken elevator in the building had been repaired and soldiers are working to improve the outside of the building, including removing ice and snow. The slippery conditions have kept some soldiers, with limited mobility due to their wounds, in their rooms. A garage door that has been broken for months will soon be repaired as well. - One of the soldiers featured in the report, Specialist Jeremy Duncan, whose room is encrusted with mold, has been moved to another room while workers repair his lodgings. He will return to his room once the repairs are done, says Weightman. Walter Reed and Army officials have been "meeting continuously for three days" since the articles began appearing, Weightman says. A large roundtable meeting with Army and Defense Department officials will take place at the Pentagon early this morning to continue talks about improvements in the outpatient system. "We're starting to attack how we'll fix and mitigate" some of the problems, he says. Social workers will now be stationed around the clock at Mologne House, the 200-room hotel on the post where many of the outpatients live. Plans are being developed to better train other staff members who deal with outpatient needs. The Army will also consider moving some outpatients to its other medical centers throughout the United States and will determine over the next weeks whether more workers are needed at Walter Reed.
- In the Senate, Democrats Barack Obama and Claire McCaskill are preparing legislation that will require more frequent inspections of hospitals providing treatment to active-duty military personnel. Congressional Democrats have been complaining about the dismal conditions endured by Walter Reed Army Hospital's wounded outpatients for years, but until November 2006, the Republican leadership routinely blocked any investigations or debate on the subject. Democratic senators Barbara Mikulski and Patty Murray have also written to Defense Secretary Robert Gates demanding an inspector general's investigation into living conditions for the returning soldiers at Walter Reed.
- Obama says, "Caring for our returning heroes is one of the things we can still get right about this war, and that's why the deterioration of the conditions at Walter Reed is both appalling and unacceptable. The brave men and women wounded at war should receive the best we have to offer and the highest quality of care, and that's why this legislation would cut red tape, improve service, and require frequent inspections of all active duty military hospitals." McCaskill adds, "I felt sick when I read these articles about how our injured American military men and women are being treated at Walter Reed. They sacrificed and fought bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan. They shouldn't have to fight a whole new war at home to receive the service and compensation they deserve." The proposed Obama-McCaskill legislation would: simplify the paperwork process for recovering soldiers; improve the ratio of caseworkers to recovering soldiers; increase the training of caseworkers; require more frequent IG inspections of hospital facilities and standards of care; establish timelines and benchmarks for repairs to substandard facilities; provide recovering soldiers with psychological counseling; and require regular reporting to Congress on: the total number of recovering soldiers at military hospitals; the number of caseworkers; the average waiting time for treatment; and the number of suicide attempts, accidental deaths or drug overdoses. (Washington Post, Washington Post)
- February 20: Walter Reed hospital officials are investigating Michael Wagner, the head of the Army's Medical Family Assistance Center until he abruptly left his position three weeks ago.
Walter Reed scandal
Apparently, while Wagner was steering families of wounded veterans towards private donors who would help them feed their children, pay their bills, or find lodging near their wounded family members, he was also seeking funders and soliciting donations for his own new charity based in Texas. Many families say Wagner was callous towards them, and impeded their efforts to receive assistance. A lawyer for the commander of Reed, Major General George Weightman, says that "it would clearly be a conflict of interest," prohibited by federal law, Army regulations and Defense Department ethics rules if Wagner used his position to solicit funds for his own organization. Wagner resigned last month to work full time on his own charity, the Military, Veteran and Family Assistance Foundation, based in Dallas. The foundation includes the Phoenix Project, which runs marriage retreats for soldiers returning from combat. According to its Web site, the foundation is supported by several corporations, other foundations and individuals. - Some families are happy with the help they received from Wagner and his office, but others tell a different story. "We had many family members who came to me because they couldn't get a respectful and compassionate response from Dr. Wagner," says Peggy Baker, director of a charity that helps wounded soldiers, Operation First Response.
- Wagner denies he solicited funds or made contact with donors during office hours. "It's just not true," he says. "I intentionally stayed out of that. I couldn't do that. I couldn't do both." He says he is not paid by the foundation, but he has yet to file the documents that would prove his claims with the Internal Revenue Service. He says his superiors "knew of my involvement right from the beginning." However, Weightman says the command had been unaware of Wagner's Texas charity until recently. "My only purpose and my priority 12 to 19 hours a day was to assist the families of the wounded," Wagner says of his work at the hospital. "I saw 6,000 people coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. I did my best, but I'm not God. What I did there was a job that was superhuman."
- Wagner's story, what can be verified of it, does not hold water. He claims the Dallas charity was founded by his brother and that he did not officially become its executive director until he left Walter Reed. But fundraising documents from early January, before he resigned, list him as the director, and the organization's Web site called him its executive director months before he resigned. In a fundraising letter he signed shortly before he quit the Medical Family Assistance Center, Wagner referred to his work at Walter Reed. As head of the center, he wrote, "I have had over a thousand citizens in this great country asking what they might be able to do at Walter Reed for our wounded troops and their families. I found myself telling them that Walter Reed was blessed with the outpouring of the goodness and generosity of the American public and that if they were really interested in assisting, they should look within their own communities." His letter went on, "I realized they were not working with their local communities so...I decided to found the Military, Veteran and Family Assistance Foundation to do just this, to do what I am able to help our soldiers reenter their home and local community." The charity's business plan envisions going from a $237,000 pilot project in the first year, which ended in August 2006 -- while he was working at Walter Reed -- to a $145 million foundation by 2011. He signed the letter "Executive Director and Founder."
- Leita Sosin, an 11-year Army veteran who worked in Wagner's office for two years, says she complained to him and to co-workers about his involvement with the charity. "It really broke me to see what he was doing," she says. "Instead of working with the families at Walter Reed and with us, he spent all his time putting together the Phoenix Project." Moscow Spencer, a case manager fired by Wagner in October, also complained to her co-workers. "All day long he'd work on his program," she recalls. "If someone came in to donate money, he would talk to them about his project." Sosin says the office was overwhelmed by the number of families who needed assistance and who were confused by the complex bureaucracy. "Everyone needed help, but you couldn't get them the help as fast as they needed it," she says. "Someone like me could scream all day about how it was broken, but no one wanted to take the time to fix it." She also says Wagner was arrogant toward some staff members and families. "People got hurt in the process, whether it be financially or because he promised a lot of things he never followed up on," she says. Sosin resigned after writing a letter in April that laid out her concerns, a letter which was never followed up on by Wagner or his staff. Wagner claims Sosin never complained to him and that he has no idea why she quit.
- Washington Post reporters Dana Priest and Anne Hull write, "Poverty among soldiers returning from war is not uncommon. While they continue to live on the Army payroll until they return to active duty or are discharged, some experience a substantial decrease in pay when combat pay or hazard pay disappears. Some Army families breach the poverty line when a spouse quits a job to help the soldier recuperate; mortgage payments don't stop, and they still need to feed their children. Many turn to the generosity of Americans eager to prove they have not forgotten the troops' sacrifices. While staff members and soldiers acknowledge that some families take advantage of the plentiful freebies at Walter Reed, many others ask for help only as a last resort. The assistance center is supposed to be the connection between a soldier's family and private donors. Until recently, it did not accept cash contributions but instead matched families' needs -- for bus or plane tickets, clothing, emergency food vouchers, grants for mortgages or living expenses -- with organizations set up to help. According to Walter Reed, 14 families on average seek assistance from the center each day. Although it is difficult to quantify the value of donations, the center received $4,500 worth of phone cards in 2006 and handled $1.9 million worth of donated plane tickets."
- Some soldiers go directly to the many volunteer organizations set up to help the wounded. Last year, Wagner began an effort to funnel all requests and donations through the family assistance center. It was a good idea, says Sosin and others, but because Wagner seemed preoccupied, a bottleneck of requests resulted. "It was really all at the expense of the service member," says Sandra Butterfield, who worked at Walter Reed as an ombudsman for a Defense Department-funded relief organization. "He decreed that everything had to go through him," and it didn't seem to matter if that slowed the process. Officials, she said, "don't understand what it meant to have no money. Family members changed the sheets, empty the bedpan. But they are leaving their homes across the country.... Every day I came home angry."
- Many families are also angry about the treatment they received from Wagner. "The patient care was absolutely wonderful, but the administration was horrible, especially Dr. Wagner," says Maria Mendez, whose 25-year-old nephew, Specialist Roberto Reyes, suffered severe brain and limb damage when a mine exploded near him outside Baghdad. "It was like running around in circles. He was never around." Mendez says, "They were unprofessional, discourteous and uncompassionate all in one. I was very surprised. You figure any family who's gone through such devastation, then faces this, to be treated with such unprofessionalism...it's like you're putting salt on the wounds." Staff members from other offices also complained to the command about Wagner. In one memo, an employee questioned why a soldier's mother "who had subsisted on dried soups...due to her lack of funds" could not get help. Four months after approaching the center, the memo said, the mother had not received the per diem owed her as her child's nonmedical attendant "and has no cash for essentials nor emergencies." A wife who accompanied her wounded husband, who was based in Germany, said Wagner asked her repeatedly why she did not return to Germany so she could continue working. The woman "reported she felt harassed and bullied but that she held her ground," the employee's memo states.
- Wagner is defensive about his performance, and says the families were angry at his office, not because it failed them, but because they were distraught over their situation. "Their true need is an emotional one," he says. "They're going to be angry at somebody.... I did my best; no, more than my best." (Washington Post)
- February 20: Vice Admiral Mike McConnell is sworn in as the new Director of National Intelligence, replacing John Negroponte.
US intelligence
He is a career intelligence officer who once headed the National Security Agency. Many current and former intelligence officials believe that Negroponte was eased out because of long-running conflicts with Dick Cheney and his office, and McConnell will be a far more amenable and compliant fit for Cheney. These officials also believe that with McConnell at the helm of the nation's intelligence, the administration will have an ally in its attempts to intensify its belligerence towards Iran and escalate its domestic surveillance program. Negroponte was never fully on board with either stance, the officials say. "McConnell will go along with whatever [Cheney tells him to do] and make sure that no objective NIE [on Iran] comes out," says one former senior intelligence officer. Vincent Cannistraro, the former chief of counterterrorism under the elder Bush, calls McConnell's selection "a disaster." And former CIA officer Larry Johnson says, "McConnell's not an effective manager. He will be likely to acquiesce to White House pressure on issues. ...He doesn't have a clear vision. He's not a strong manager." - Negroponte's influence has been waning ever since he defended the 2005 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that came out in 2005, which concluded that Iran was at least ten years away from being able to field a nuclear weapon. That conclusion agitated Cheney and his coterie, and put Negroponte on a collision course with the vice president. Cheney helped restart the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans in March 2006 with a new focus on Iran, and that office's far darker and less reliable claims about Iran's nuclear capabilities was, and is, more to Cheney's liking. Negroponte was also less comfortable about the Bush program of warrantless domestic surveillance than is McConnell, another area of conflict between Negroponte and Cheney. "[The office of the Vice President] could not get Negroponte to do anything with NSA and domestic surveillance," says one former senior intelligence official. "McConnell worked with Cheney during the Gulf War. He is not competent, but he is someone they can control."
- The CIA uses the banking records of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) to trace transactions of suspected al-Qaeda supporters by reviewing records from the global banking industry. To ensure that no Americans' civil rights are violated, the CIA hired outside auditor Booz Allen Hamilton to audit the wiretaps. McConnell is a former vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton, a large defense contractor with enormous US government contracts and a history of working closely with the government on electronic surveillance, including being involved in the Total Awareness Program. The firm boasts several former members of the intelligence community, including a former director of the CIA and a former director of the NSA. (Raw Story, Wikipedia)
- February 20: The lawyers in the Libby perjury trial make their closing arguments to the jury.
Lewis Libby perjury trial
Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald implies during his arguments that he may be considering a further investigation of Dick Cheney. In his closing arguments, "[T]here is a cloud over the vice president...a cloud over the White House over what happened. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud's there because the defendant obstructed justice. That cloud is something you just can't pretend isn't there." He also notes that Libby discussed the leak investigation with Cheney even after being instructed by the FBI not to talk about it with anyone. Libby is "not supposed to be talking to other people," Fitzgerald says. But "the only person [Libby] told is the vice president. Think about that." Fitzgerald also excoriates Bush for failing to uphold a promise to fire anyone in his administration that was found to have been involved in the Plame leak. - Fitzgerald reminds the jury that in October 2003, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters of the president's intentions during a morning news briefing at the White House. "Any sane person would think, based on what McClellan said in October 2003, that anyone involved in this would be fired," Fitzgerald says. Libby's attorney, Theodore Wells, tells the jury that Libby innocently forgot about the conversation his client had with Cheney because he had been dealing with more pressing issues, such as the war in Iraq and national security. Wells adds that Russert did not have any notes to back up his assertion that he did not tell Libby about Plame, and tells jurors it boils down to Libby's word against Russert's. But Fitzgerald rejects Wells' argument saying Libby discussed Plame with reporters on a Monday and then claims to have forgotten the information and learned about her for the first time on a Thursday. "This is not 'he said, she said,'" Fitzgerald tells the jury. "He [Libby] made up a story and he stuck to it. If Tim Russert were run over by a bus and had gone to the great news desk in the sky, you can still find plenty of evidence that the defendant lied." Earlier, Peter Zeidenberg, the deputy special prosecutor, told jurors that Libby had "nine conversations about [Valerie Plame]. He remembers none of them. The one conversation he says he has, with Tim Russert, is a conversation we now know never happened." Libby "lied to the FBI and the grand jury about how he learned about Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie [Plame] Wilson, who he talked to about Mr. Wilson's wife and what he said when he discussed Mr. Wilson's wife with others. ...It's simply not credible to believe he would forget this information about Wilson's wife. It's ludicrous."
- "Cheney," Fitzgerald tells jurors, "enlisted Libby to act as his surrogate and personally respond to reporters' queries about the veracity of Wilson's allegations by authorizing his chief of staff to leak classified information to journalists. The classified information that was leaked may have included Plame's covert status in retaliation for her husband's stinging rebukes of the administration's Iraq policies." Cheney had suspected that Plame set up her husband's trip to Niger, Fitzgerald says, and tells jurors that in July 2003, "the number one question on the vice president's mind" had been to find out who was responsible for sending Wilson to Niger.
- If the jury finds Libby guilty, then it is possible prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will expand his investigation to look into some of the issues raised during the trial, most probably turning his gaze towards Cheney. Dan Richman, a former federal prosecutor and a professor at Fordham Law School, says the significance of Cheney's reaction to Libby's version of events depends on exactly what Libby told him and what Cheney knew at the time. "Only Cheney and Libby know the import of their conversation, and as is often the case, each could have even come away with a different impression of what was meant" by what the other said, Richman says of the evidence showing that Cheney directed Libby to leak Plame's identity to the press. "If Cheney was merely showing surprise and interest at what Libby indicating to him he was going to tell investigators, then the vice president is innocent in the exchange," Richman says. "But if he had reason to believe, or personal knowledge, that what Libby was planning to say was untrue then there is good reason to view Cheney's conduct in an entirely different light -- an obstruction interpretation." Such a charge might hinge on evidence showing that Cheney instructed White House officials such as then-press secretary Scott McClellan to tell the press that Libby was not involved in the Plame leak, even though Cheney himself directed Libby to reveal Plame's name and CIA status to the press. During a fall 2003 meeting with Libby about Libby's request for protection, a visibly agitated Cheney wrote a note to himself: "Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others. Must happen today." (National Journal, Truthout, AP/Yahoo! News)
- February 20: Reporter Murray Waas reports that, in one sense, Dick Cheney brought the Libby trial on with his own actions.
Lewis Libby perjury trial
On June 20, 2002, then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham, received a telephone call at home from Cheney. Cheney angrily recounted a news article in the morning paper that said telephone calls intercepted by the National Security Agency on September 10, 2001, apparently warned that al-Qaeda was about to launch a major attack against the United States, possibly the next day. But the intercepts were not translated until September 12, 2001, the story said, the day after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The story itself was bad enough, but Cheney was doubly angry about the leak of the highly classified information from the NSA intercepts. Cheney warned Graham that the White House was considering ending all cooperation with the joint inquiry by the Senate and House Intelligence committees on the government's failure to predict and prevent the 9/11 attacks. Classified records would no longer be turned over to the Hill, Cheney snarled, and administration witnesses would not be available for interviews or testimony. Cheney, according to Graham, also threatened Graham, saying that if the leaders of Congress's various intelligence committees didn't take serious action to find out who leaked the NSA intercept information, and made sure no such leak ever happened again, Bush would directly make the case to the American people that Congress could not be trusted with vital national security secrets. "Take control of the situation," Graham recalls Cheney instructing him. Graham told Cheney that he, too, was frustrated over the leaks. But his attempt to calm Cheney down was unsuccessful. - Of course, Cheney and other administration officials saw the NSA intercept leak as an opportunity to undercut congressional oversight and possibly restrict the flow of classified information to Capitol Hill. But what Cheney could not have known was that his complaints to Graham about leaking classified information would help set events in motion that eventually would lead to the prosecution of his own chief of staff, Lewis Libby, as the result of a separate leak investigation, and reveal Cheney's own role as a leaker of classified information.
- Graham may have suspected, but could not be sure, that Cheney's call was part of a strategy to undercut Congressional oversight and restrict the flow of classified information to the legislature. White House officials were legitimately concerned about the leaking of classified information, but they also saw the NSA leak as a golden opportunity. According to two administration officials, Libby was among the aides advising Cheney on the strategy to undercut Congress.
- Cheney's private tirade to Graham was followed up the same day by a public chastisement, with then-press secretary Ari Fleischer telling the press, "The president [has] very deep concerns about anything that would be inappropriately leaked that could...harm our ability to maintain sources and methods and anything else that could interfere with America's ability to fight the war on terrorism." Soon after, Bush said that whoever in government disclosed details of his administration's covert NSA surveillance program had committed a "shameful act" that had the effect of "helping the enemy." Attorney General Alberto Gonzales raised the possibility of prosecuting journalists.
- Graham and his Republican counterpart in the House, then-House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss, asked the Justice Department to investigate whether any members of Congress -- including themselves -- or their staffs were responsible for the leak. Prosecutors and FBI agents later focused on Republican senator Richard Shelby, who was then the ranking member on Senate Intelligence, as the person most likely responsible for disclosing the information to the press. Largely because Shelby was a Republican, the Justice Department decided not to press charges. And the Senate Ethics Committee dismissed the matter after three years of "review." Shelby has long insisted that he was not responsible for the leak
- The decision was made early in the morning, by four ranking members of Congress -- Graham, Goss, Shelby, and House Democrat Nancy Pelosi -- to request the DOJ investigation. One of the four, who refuses to be named, says in hindsight, "It was a hastily made decision, made out of a sense of panic...and by people with bleary eyes." Another of the four recalls, "There was a real concern that any meaningful oversight by Congress was very much at stake. The political dynamic back then -- not that long after September 11 -- was completely different. They took Cheney's threats very seriously." Graham recalls, "Looking back at it, I think we were clearly set up by Dick Cheney and the White House. They wanted to shut us down. And they wanted to shut down a legitimate congressional inquiry that might raise questions in part about whether their own people had aggressively pursued al-Qaeda in the days prior to the September 11 attacks. The vice president attempted to manipulate the situation, and he attempted to manipulate us. But if his goal was to get us to back off, he was unsuccessful." Graham says when he speculated to his lifelong friend Goss about whether the White House had set them up in an effort to sabotage the joint 9/11 congressional inquiry, Goss responded, "I often wondered that myself." As for Cheney, all he will say, through a spokeswoman, is, "As president of the Senate, the vice president has discussions with members on various issues."
- But even though no charges were ever brought in the case of the NSA leaks, Waas writes that "the probe helped to pave the way for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate leaks out of the White House and, specifically the Office of the Vice President, in the Plame matter...." A federal law enforcement official says says of the administration, "They set the prosecutorial machinery in motion themselves, and the public support for it, before it came back to bite them." Grahma notes that Cheney and Libby's harsh demands to investigate leakers in Congress made it all but impossible for the White House to do anything less than cooperate fully with any criminal investigation of the Plame leak. "They would have had a certain exposure to hypocrisy if they hid behind executive privilege" when the Plame investigation began, or if they had fought the appointment of a special prosecutor, Graham says. "It made it politically untenable to avoid having a strong investigation, because they had demanded it of us. With us, they said we should call out the meanest, leanest dogs. The example that they set with us became the boomerang that came around and hit them."
- The lead investigator of the NSA leak, FBI agent Jack Eckenrode, complained that, without being allowed to subpoena journalists, he could not compile enough evidence to bring any charges against anyone. Two senior Justice Department officials at the time, Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and Criminal Division head Michael Chertoff, refused to approve subpoenas for the journalists. Some investigators voiced concerns that two GOP political appointees -- Thompson and Chertoff -- had turned them down on subpoenas for a probe whose chief suspect was a Republican senator. Eckenrode later became the lead investigator on the Plame leak case, and privately complained that once again he was coming close to cracking the case, only to have prosecutors fail to bring any charges because of their inability to question journalists. Eckenrode breached the journalists' "wall of silence" when NBC's Tim Russert agreed to speak with him about conversations Russert had with Libby. But Russert and NBC fought a subpoena from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to compel Russert's testimony under oath, even though by refusing to testify, Russert was in essence protecting Libby, who was lying about receiving the information about Plame, not from Cheney or other senior White House officials, but from Russert. Eckenrode could be excused for feeling a disturbing sense of deja vu, since, in the NSA case, he had had Shelby identified by Fox News reporter Carl Cameron, who then refused to testify under oath. Graham says that even if Shelby had leaked information about the intercepts to the press, he is quite sure that White House officials also leaked similar information. Although CNN broke the story, the next-day stories in the Post and USA Today contained details that Hayden had not disclosed to the intelligence committees -- information that Shelby did not have. Graham says, "That would lead a reasonable person to infer the administration leaked as well, or what they were doing was trying to set us up...to make this an issue which they could come after us with."
- Fitzgerald became the special prosecutor when then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, under intense pressure from senior Justice Department officials James Comey and Christopher Wray, recused himself from leading the investigation and allowed Comey to appoint a special prosecutor. Waas writes, "Senate Democrats were also pressing for a special prosecutor. Because Cheney had personally pushed for a criminal investigation of senators and their staff over the NSA intercepts, the Democrats insisted that the White House endure similar scrutiny over the leak of Plame's identity.
- As cited above, the irony of Libby being charged with concealing his role in a high-profile leak of classified information to the press is evidence. Graham says, "It's hard to believe that the chief of staff to the vice president was acting as a rogue agent. What we have learned from the trial validates the suspicion that Libby was not just operating as a lone ranger. He was carrying out what the vice president wanted him to do, which was to besmirch Joe Wilson. I think Libby has been a conspirator in one of the most reprehensible and damaging breaches of American security in modern history." Former CIA briefing officer Craig Schmall testified during the Libby trial that, after reading Robert Novak's column outing Plame, he told Cheney and Libby, "I thought there was a grave danger leaking the name of a CIA officer. Foreign intelligence services where she served now have the opportunity to investigate everyone whom she had come in contact with. They could be arrested, tortured, or killed."
- Cheney used similar tactics thirty years ago to try to close down Congressional oversight. A recently declassified memo handwritten by Cheney more than 30 years ago when he was an aide to then-President Ford shows him considering whether to press the Justice Department to pursue criminal charges against the New York Times and reporter Seymour Hersh after the newspaper published an article revealing a highly classified espionage program against the Soviet Union. Waas writes, "When the Justice Department balked at prosecuting anyone, Cheney adroitly tried to exploit the news report for other ends. He wrote under the heading 'Broader ramifications': 'Can we take advantage of it to bolster our position on the Church committee investigation? To point out the need for limits on the scope of the investigation?' At the time, a select committee headed by then-Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, was investigating the CIA -- an unprecedented and historic inquiry that revealed everything from CIA-sponsored coups against foreign governments to attempted assassinations of foreign leaders, to illegal domestic spying." (National Journal)
- February 20: Democratic senator Charles Schumer says that his party has a better chance of creating the next generation than Republicans because the Republican Party is "controlled by two interest groups that don't represent America."
Congressional Democrats
Those two interest groups, says Schumer, are "theocrats and economic royalists." Schumer says that America's founders did not want religion determining what their government does, and neither does he. "I respect faith -- I'm a person of faith myself," he says. "I've been in too many inner-city black churches, working-class Catholic parishes, rural Methodist congregations, little Jewish synagogues to not know that faith is a gift -- it's a gift. But the theocrats are a narrow band of the faithful who want to impose that faith on American government." Schumer goes on to say that the Republicans' "economic royalists" are people of enormous wealth who do not think they should have to pay taxes. "I bought those 10,000 acres with my money; it's my land," he says, demonstrating what he sees as the attitude of an economic royalist. "How dare your government tell me what I can put in the air or put in the water. ...I built my company with my own bare hands; how dare your government tell me what I should pay my worker, how I should treat my worker -- and if I want to discriminate against blacks or women or gays, that's my business. Get your government out of my way." He says the GOP has, over the last 35 years and with the aid of conservative think tanks and talk radio, has had a philosophy centered "around narrow greed." (One News Now) - February 20: Breaking with his recent unquestioning support of Bush's foreign policies, Republican senator and presidential candidate John McCain says the war in Iraq has been mismanaged for years, and that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will be remembered as one of the worst in history.
Iraq war and occupation
"We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement -- that's the kindest word I can give you -- of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war," McCain tells a crowd of rich retirees in Hilton Head, South Carolina. "The price is very, very heavy and I regret it enormously." McCain says that Rumsfeld consistently refused to put enough troops into Iraq to get the job done. "I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history," he says. In November, when Rumsfeld stepped down, McCain sounded a much different note: "While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans' respect and gratitude for his many years of public service." - McCain's presidential campaign has been faltering in recent days, with many Republicans still unsure about his candidacy for many reasons: his age, his on-again off-again support for Bush's strategies, and a growing fascination with the candidacy of former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. The sentiments of many Republican voters are echoed by one of McCain's listeners, Paul Baker, who says, "It's too early to say [who he will support in 2008]. I'm just going to wait it out and see what happens." (Washington Post)
Britain pulling out of Iraq
- February 21: British prime minister Tony Blair will soon announce the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, bringing to a close his country's role as the only major ally of the Bush administration in occupying Iraq.
Iraq war and occupation
Some 1,500 British troops will return home in the next few weeks, and by the end of the year, Blair plans on withdrawing a total of 3,000, if the security situation in that country permits. Currently Britain has about 7,100 troops in Iraq, mostly in the southern part of the country. - Blair's announcement comes on the heels of Bush's plans to send at least 21,500 more American troops into Iraq. Other "coalition" partners have either left in recent months, or plan to start leaving: Italy and Slovakia have already withdrawn their troops, and Denmark and South Korea plan to withdraw their troops shortly.
- Bush officials are desperately spinning Britain's pullout as a positive development, with NSC spokesman Gordon Johndroe calling the British withdrawal "a sign of success." Johndroe says, "While the United Kingdom is maintaining a robust force in southern Iraq, we're pleased that conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the Iraqis. ...President Bush sees this as a sign of success and what is possible for us once we help the Iraqis deal with the sectarian violence in Baghdad. We want to bring our troops homes as well. It's the model we want to emulate, to turn over more responsibilities to Iraqis and bring our troops home. That's the goal and always has been."
- Britain's withdrawal is anything but a signal that Iraq is improving. Conditions in and around the southern Shi'ite city of Basra, where most of the British troops are stationed, are expected to deteriorate rapidly once the British leave; few believe that the Iraqi security forces can keep order in Basra or anywhere else. But US defense secretary Robert Gates says he isn't concerned that Britain is "planning a drawdown at some point this year in their forces in the south," though most experts worry about a power vacuum in the area that could quickly be filled by elements of the radical Shi'ite Mahdi Army. Gates's Pentagon, in its most recent quarterly report to Congress, listed Basra as one of five cities outside Baghdad where violence remains "significant," and said the region was one of only two "not ready for transition" to Iraqi authorities.
- But, according to British officials, there is a much darker reason why the British are leaving: the British military can no longer sustain simultaneous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The British military is approaching "operational failure," former defense staff chief Charles Guthrie warns. And Middle East expert Clive Leeds of the University of Leeds adds, "Because the British army is in essence fighting a far more intensive counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan, there's been a realization that there has to be some sort of transfer of resources from Iraq to Afghanistan. It's either that, or you risk in some ways losing both. It's the classic case of 'Let's declare victory and get out.'"
- The pullout is a political necessity for Blair and his beleagured Labour Party. Labour is trailing in the polls with crucial regional elections coming up in a few months. Blair himself is preparing to step down and hand over power to fellow Labourite, treasury secretary Gordon Brown, who favors phasing out Britain's deployment in Iraq. In announcing the troop reductions, Blair said they coincided with the increasing assumption of security responsibilities by Iraqi military and police forces. He said British troops would continue to patrol the Iranian border and remain at their main base in Basra through at least 2008, to assist Iraqi forces if needed. "It is important to show the Iraqi people that we do not desire our forces to remain any longer than they are needed, but whilst they are needed, we will be at their side," Blair told Parliament. "The situation in Basra is very different from Baghdad. There is no Sunni insurgency. There is no al-Qaeda base. There is little Shia-on-Sunni violence," despite "often intense fire" from Shi'ite militias targeting British troops, he said. "What all of this means is not that Basra is how we want it to be. But it does mean that the next chapter in Basra's history can be written by Iraqis." However, Blair's assessment of significant progress in securing southern Iraq is overblown, say most analysts. The south is not embroiled in the civil war plaguing the capital and the central-western Sunni heartland, but it remains jittery, unstable and frequently bloody. Shi'ite militias and armed gangs essentially rule over such cities as Basra and Amarah, as well as the long, desolate stretches of roadway through the marshlands and deserts of the south. British bases in Basra regularly come under mortar fire. British troops engage in almost daily gunfights with militiamen. In recent months, the British all but evacuated their downtown base and moved to a more secure site on the grounds of the city's airport.
- A study on the south issued this week by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank that has been sympathetic to the Bush administration's foreign policy goals, describes southern Iraq in dire terms. It notes that Basra, once one of Iraq's more liberal and cosmopolitan cities, has become a bastion for Islamists who use the south's vast oil wealth to "fill their war chests." The report says, "The province has suffered one of the worst reversals of fortune of any area in Iraq since the fall of Saddam's regime." Military and political analysts say a British drawdown in the region could leave a vacuum that could provide shelter to militiamen displaced during stepped-up US-Iraqi operations in Baghdad, in a location where Iranian influence is great. Equally serious, they say, is the fact that Basra and its environs are a crucial supply link to US forces in Baghdad. "The fear is essentially that when the UK pulls out, the militias will come to control the situation, rather than the Iraqi army," says Michael Williams, head of the transatlantic program at the London-based Royal United Services Institute. Although US and British leaders have taken pains to deny any split in policy over Iraq, "if the security situation in Basra was perfect, should the Brits be withdrawing troops, or reallocating them someplace else where they're needed, which is Baghdad?" Williams asks. "The fact is that the troops that work best alongside the Americans are leaving the country."
- Democratic leaders in Congress denounced the Bush administration assessment as misleading. "No matter how the White House tries to spin it, the British government has decided to split with President Bush and begin to move their troops out of Iraq," says senator Edward Kennedy. "This should be a wake-up call to the administration. Prime Minister Blair's announced redeployment of British troops is a stunning rejection of President Bush's high-risk Iraq policy." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the British decision "confirms the doubts in the minds of the American people" about the decision to boost the US force. "The president's escalation plan to send more U.S. troops to Iraq is out of step with the American people and our allies. Why are thousands of additional American troops being sent to Iraq at the same time that British troops are planning to leave?" In Britain, Blair's opponents calls the withdrawal an admission of failure. "The unpalatable truth is that we will leave behind a country on the brink of civil war, in which reconstruction has stalled and corruption is endemic, and a region that is a lot less stable than it was in 2003," says Liberal Democratic Party leader Menzies Campbell. "That is a long way short of the beacon of democracy in the Middle East that was promised some four years ago."
- After the British leave, the only troops in Iraq besides the Americans will be 2300 South Koreans, 900 Poles, 800 Australians, 800 Georgians, 600 Romanians, and 460 Danes, with the South Koreans and the Danish planning on leaving soon. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow says the US-led coalition "remains intact" even though the roster of nations contributing troops, excluding the US, has fallen to 25 from 35.
- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wonders if the British withdrawal might pressure Bush into changing his war strategy, and says Senate Democrats will move ahead with their own efforts to limit the president's authority. Reid says that Blair's announcement probably won't "make too much difference" for Bush. "Well, in the past they've ignored everybody. So they might must ignore him too," he says. "Realistically it will give those of us who believe the course in Iraq is headed in the wrong direction...more confidence that what we're doing is the right thing to do." Reid says Senate Democrats will move ahead with an effort to limit the 2002 measure authorizing Bush's use of force in Iraq. That move is planned despite a warning from Senate Republicans that it's certain to be vetoed and the veto would be upheld.
- Perhaps the most scathing criticism of the Bush administration's reaction to the British pullout comes from Democratic senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama, who on February 23 says that the decision is a plain recognition that Iraq's problems can't be solved militarily. "Now if Tony Blair can understand that, then why can't George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?" he asks a crowd of supporters. "In fact, Dick Cheney said this is all part of the plan [and] it was a good thing that Tony Blair was withdrawing, even as the administration is preparing to put 20,000 more of our young men and women in. Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. ...When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."
- Another presidential candidate, Republican senator John McCain, says soberly of Blair, "He has literally sacrificed his political career because of Iraq. That is a great testament to his political courage." Asked later by a reporter if he was in danger of making the same sacrifice, McCain responds, "Sure."
- As a side note, some wonder if the sudden British pullout might have something to do with the imminent deployment of Prince Harry into Iraq with his division. The analysts at the liberal political site Buzzflash observe, "[D]espite the 132 current British casualties, there would be serious hell to pay if Prince Harry was wounded or killed in combat. As a national figure and third in line to the throne (after his father and older brother, William, who is also a soldier but not allowed to be sent into combat), Harry's anticipated deployment had been causing a buzz all weekend. Even senior military commanders are apprehensive about possible his combat service. ...Tony Blair is not related to Prince Harry, but Blair knows his own neck is on the line when it comes to Harry's safety in Iraq. If only Bush had the same accountability to the wellbeing of just one of our soldiers in harm's way." (AP/CBS News, AP/Quad Cities Online, Buzzflash, Los Angeles Times, AP/Guardian, AP/Guardian)
- February 21: US Army Surgeon General Kevin Kiley blames wounded veterans for the hideous conditions they are forced to endure at Walter Reed Army Hospital.
Walter Reed scandal
On PBS's NewsHour, Kiley says, "But, remember, more than half the rooms were actually perfectly OK. And those that are problems like mold, there were only about seven of them that had that. The mice and cockroach issue was something that, in fact, the command did address last year, and that was due to soldiers leaving food in their rooms. We policed that up, and the rodent problem and cockroach problem has been corrected." Setting aside the fact that Kiley is lying about the Army's approach to "solving" the endemic problems at Reed, for the Army Surgeon General to blame the troops for the abysmal living conditions they are forced to endure goes beyond reprehensible. - Kiley is interviewed along with Steve Robinson of Veterans for America about the living conditions at Reed. Kiley is responsible for all of the Army's medical facilities; he was even commander of Walter Reed Hospital from 2002-2004. While Robinson says he was disturbingly aware of the poor conditions at Reed, Kiley, before blaming the soldiers for the conditions, says, "Well, I think it's not that we weren't aware that that building needs and requires continued maintenance and upkeep. And since 2001, we've had two overhauls and one major renovation. In the last year, we've done over 200 what we call 'work orders' to fix things that were, again, reported in the paper. It's an old building. You can walk into it today, and if you walk into it six months from now, you're going to find issues. Senior leaders, platoon sergeants, company commanders, brigade commanders should be walking through those facilities at least on some kind of a periodic basis." Reporter Judy Woodruff notes that the problems were still endemic of the Reed facilities, and Kiley twists the facts: "Well, I'm not sure about mice. I'm not sure about rodents. I think mold recurs. The HVAC system and the plumbing system in that building are old. They probably need to be replaced, and that's our intent to do those things." He concludes with the old Bush administration rah-rah: "Well, I will tell you that I continue to be extremely proud of Walter Reed, the staff. As I said this morning at a town hall meeting, I jog around the compound in the morning, and the staff are there at 5:00 and 5:30 in the morning ready to take care of patients. I think, as the vice has said, we're going to get on this right away, get it fixed."
- Daily Kos blogger "Inclusiveheart" writes, "I kept thinking that the average motel above the lowest of the lowest standard generally keeps rodents, pests and mold to a minimum. I'm not sure why the Army can't handle at least that." (PBS/Daily Kos)
- February 21: The editorial board of the Boston Globe points out that according to recent comments by US intelligence officials, al-Qaeda has renewed its control of terrorist networks and opened new training camps in Pakistan.
Islamist terrorism
But Bush officials have said in recent days that al-Qaeda's leadership has been reduced to little more than symbols, and Bush said just before the November 2006 elections, "Al-Qaeda is on the run." They ask the obvious question: "Which is it, then, a hounded, faltering al-Qaeda or an enemy that has regrouped and become a greater threat than ever? The answer is crucial not only for national security but for America's open society." - The Globe continues, "An obvious part of the answer is that Bush has played politics with the Qaeda threat. When it suits his needs, he inflates the stateless band of Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri into an existential threat. At other times, Bush boasts about routing bin Laden, passing over in silence his administration's failure to send enough US forces to capture him in the caves of Tora Bora five years ago." Which one is correct? If you ask the Bush administration, the answer depends on the political needs of the moment. The Globe notes, "Al-Qaeda has little chance of toppling any government in the Muslim world. It presents instead a threat of episodic terrorism, and it has provoked the security services of many countries to cooperate against that threat. That cooperation should be intensified and expanded, but the threat from al-Qaeda does not justify Bush's curtailing of Americans' civil rights or the government's invading of their privacy. It should never have been used to justify a resort to torture. These are abuses of power harmful to America's true interests, and they derive from a distorted representation of al-Qaeda." (Boston Globe/International Herald Tribune)
- February 21: The New York Daily News gives a quick reference list to all of the White House officials who leaked Valerie Plame Wilson's name to the press or to officials who had no business with that information.
Plame outing
Reporter James Gordon Meek reminds readers, "Any staffer proven to have leaked CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity 'would no longer be in this administration,' former White House spokesman Scott McClellan promised in September 2003. But three years later, President Bush hasn't sacked anyone, even though the perjury trial of Lewis (Scooter) Libby -- which resumes today -- shows at least 10 other top officials blabbed about the spy whose job as a covert agent was classified as an official government secret." Those ten officials -- not including Libby -- are, as Meek reports:- Vice President Cheney: When Libby reminded his boss the vice president that he learned about Plame from him, Cheney tilted his head quizzically and said, "From me?"
- Karl Rove: Bush's top political mastermind told reporters Robert Novak and Matt Cooper about Plame.
- Richard Armitage: The former deputy secretary of state gossiped about Plame to Novak, and marveled to Watergate icon Bob Woodward, "How about that?"
- Ari Fleischer: Bush's former spokesman got immunity before admitting he told reporters John Dickerson and David Gregory about Plame. Reporter Walter Pincus said Fleischer told him about her, too.
- Dan Bartlett: Fleischer claimed Bush's counselor blurted out to him on Air Force One in July 2003 that Plame "worked at the CIA."
- Robert Grenier: The top CIA official overseeing Iraq operations got nervous over Libby's pestering and later "felt guilty" about telling Cheney's chief of staff about Plame.
- Bill Harlow: The CIA spokesman told Cheney flack Cathie Martin.
- Cathie Martin: She told Cheney and Libby about Plame.
- Marc Grossman: The No. 3 at the State Department also told Libby about Plame.
- Craig Schmall: Cheney's CIA daily briefer discussed Plame with Libby.
- February 21: Eminent war correspondent Joseph Galloway writes that the Walter Reed hospital scandal is "the last straw" for his tolerance of the crimes and callousness of the Bush administration.
Walter Reed scandal
He writes, in part, "There's a great deal more to supporting our troops than sticking a $2 yellow ribbon magnet made in China on your SUV. There's a great deal more to it than making 'Support Our Troops' a phrase that every politician feels obliged to utter in every speech, no matter how banal the topic or craven the purpose. This week, we were treated to new revelations of just how fraudulent and shallow and meaningless 'Support Our Troops' is on the lips of those in charge of spending the half a trillion dollars of taxpayer's money that the Pentagon eats every year." Galloway decries the military's practice of forcing wounded veterans to be "warehoused in quarters unfit for human habitation...living in rat and roach-infested rooms, some of which are coated in black mold." Galloway asks, "Who among the smiling politicians who regularly troop over to the main hospital at Walter Reed for photo-op visits with those who've come home grievously wounded from the wars the politicians started have bothered to go the extra quarter-mile to see the unseen majority with their rats and roaches? Not one, it would seem, since none among them have admitted to knowing that there was a problem, much less doing something about it before the reporters blew the whistle." - Galloway notes that within hours of the publication of the Washington Post expose (see the above items), construction crews were busy patching, renovating, and spraying insectiside, and the Defense Department had appointed an "independent commission" to investigate the problems. Galloway sourly notes, "Doubtless the commission will provide a detailed report finding that no one was guilty -- certainly none of the politicians of the ruling party whose hands were on the levers of power for five long years of war. They will find that it all came about because the Army medical establishment was overwhelmed by the case load flowing out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, brave soldiers who were wheelchair-bound with missing legs or paralysis, have been left to make their own way a quarter-mile to appointments with the shrinks and a half-mile to pick up the drugs that dim their minds and eyes and pain, and make the rats and roaches recede into a fuzzy distance." Galloway connects the hideous living conditions at Walter Reed with recent news reports that the Veterans Administration isn't prepared, or willing, to treat returning veterans' debilitating mental health issues.
- "The same politicians, from a macho president to the bureaucrats to the people who chair the congressional committees that are supposed to oversee such matters, have utterly failed to protect our wounded warriors," Galloway writes. "They've talked the talk but few, if any, have ever walked the walk. No. This happened while all of them were busy as bees, taking billions out of the VA budget and planning to shut down Walter Reed by 2011 in the name of cost-efficiency. Among those politicians are the people who sent too few troops to Afghanistan or Iraq, who failed to provide enough body armor and weapons and armored vehicles and who, to protect their own political hides, refused to admit that the mission was not accomplished and change course. But it's they who are charged with the highest duty of all, in the words of President Abraham Lincoln in his Second Inaugural in 1865: 'to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.' How can they look at themselves in the mirror every morning? How dare they ever utter the words: Support Our Troops? How dare they pretend to give a damn about those they order to war? They've hidden the flag-draped coffins of the fallen from the public and the press. They've averted their eyes from the suffering that their orders have visited upon an Army that they've ground down by misuse and over-use and just plain incompetence."
- Galloway thunders, "This shabby, sorry episode of political and institutional cruelty to those who deserve the best their nation can provide is the last straw. How can they spin this one to blame the generals or the media or the Democrats? How can you do that, Karl? If the American people are not sickened and disgusted by this then, by God, we don't deserve to be defended from the wolves of this world." (Editor and Publisher)
