Showing posts with label Scandals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scandals. Show all posts

Friday, October 26, 2007

Cambridge Univ. Press Destroys Book on Terror Finance, But Copies Remain in Libraries

More on the incredibly wealthy, incredibly evil Sheikh Khalid bin Mafouz and his ongoing battle against free speech, especially when it concerns allegations that he finances terror groups (read here for background):

from the Library Journal: "ALA to Libraries: Keep Alms for Jihad, Pulped in the UK":

by Andrew Albanese & Jennifer Pinkowski (8/23/2007)


At the urging of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF), a scholarly book pulped by its British publisher is maintaining a safe haven in U.S. libraries. Alms for Jihad was the target of a potential libel suit in England by Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, whose charitable activities have reportedly been linked to terrorist activities, as conveyed in the book. In response, publisher Cambridge University Press (CUP) pulped its unsold copies of the book, put it out of print, asked libraries to pull it, and agreed to pay damages. CUP also issued a stunning public apology on its web site in which it characterized the "serious and defamatory allegations" against Mahfouz in Alms for Jihad as "manifestly false."

In a statement released last week, the OIF recommended libraries resist Cambridge’s request. Libraries "are under no legal obligation to return or destroy the book," said OIF deputy director Deborah Caldwell-Stone. "Libraries are considered to hold title to the individual copy or copies. Given the intense interest in the book, and the desire of readers to learn about the controversy firsthand, we recommend that U.S. libraries keep the book available for their users."

As of mid-August, Alms for Jihad was not available through Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, or Alibris. (About 1500 copies of the book were sold worldwide.) Libraries suddenly have an incredibly rare book in their stacks; a WorldCat search finds the book at nearly 300 libraries. Rather than discard the book, many libraries are safeguarding it, keeping it on hold, at the reserves desk. "I have recalled the copy of this title…in order to place it in our Rare Books collection, where it may be read by anyone but not borrowed," said Dona Straley, Middle East Studies librarian at Ohio State University's Ackerman Library. "Several of my colleagues at other institutions have reported their copies as missing."

That may be the case at University of North Carolina's Davis Library, whose catalog reveals that Alms for Jihad is "in search," meaning "someone has gone to the shelf to look for the book and not found it," said reference librarian Carol Tobin.

These sorts of measures may eventually be less necessary, because the authors hope to republish Alms for Jihad in the U.S. Co-author Robert O. Collins, a professor at University of California Santa Barbara, told LJ that he and co-author J. Millard Burr, a former state department employee, are currently negotiating with CUP for a rights reversion. The authors have had several offers from U.S. publishers.

"We stand by what we wrote and refused to be a party to the settlement," Collins said. "As soon as CUP received notice, they decided to settle as rapidly as possible despite our vigorous defense. CUP did not want to embark on a long and expensive suit which they could not win under English libel law." Indeed, libel laws in England are far more favorable to plaintiffs than those in the U.S.

Collins said he is confident Alms for Jihad will be republished in the U.S., where Mahfouz's charges would have little chance of succeeding in court. "In reality, the few passages referring to Mahfouz are trivial when compared to the enormous amount of information in the book that is in demand," Collins noted, adding that he has received calls from booksellers offering as much as $500 for copies.

Saturday, October 6, 2007

Jack Abramoff: High School Bully

from The God Blog by Brad A. Greenberg:

I had lunch last month with the LA Weekly's Pulitzer-winning food critic, Jonathan Gold, and we got to talking about high school. He mentioned that one of his teenage tormentors at Beverly Hills High School was his Jewish co-religionist, the now notorious Jack Abramoff, and told me he had recorded a segment for "This American Life" detailing the drama.
That segment, which originally aired in June 2006, was rebroadcast last week and is now making the blog rounds.

"He was the sort of person who would walk across the street to be unpleasant to somebody," Gold says.

Gold, who only recently trimmed his fiery-red Hessian hair, describes his high school self as "nerdy soft kid who brings his cello to class." Abramoff, legend has it, was the bulked-up jock who could squat over 500 pounds.

"In my most notable instance, I was walking down the hall to history class, and he hip-checked me ... I went sailing down the stairs with my cello," Gold says. "He was laughing about it with his friends. I suspect he forgot about it five minutes later. I didn't."

When Abramoff was sent to prison, Gold was elated. "It's just beautiful. It's more than I could have wished for."

Abramoff's demise was a long-time coming, and was indicative of the corrupt influence of K Street on Congress. The most amazing comment Abramoff, an Orthodox Jew, gave during his downfall was to The Jewish Journal:
I had lost a sense of proportion and judgment. God sent me 1,000 hints that He didn’t want me to keep doing what I was doing. But I didn’t listen, so He set off a nuclear bomb.

For what it's worth, Abramoff claims he's never met Jonathan Gold. It sounds to me like Gold wasn't the kind of classmate he would remember.

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Republicans defending the indefensible

To those of us who have come to regret supporting the Iraq War, this sort of exchange is an object lesson in the Through the Looking Glass world that is the Republican spin machine's frenzied attempts to defend the indefensible. Don't dare attack Bush cronies for being war profiteers, or for derailing our efforts in Iraq with incompetence or pointless violence against civilians and allies. That sort of attack would make YOU a partisan!

from
Crooks and Liars: "Rep. Issa makes a fool of himself during Blackwater hearing":


Senator Craig can't withdraw guilty plea

A Minnesota state court judge has ruled against Senator Larry Craig's motion to rescind his guilty plea to a disorderly conduct charge made pursuant to his arrest in a "sex sting" in an airport men's room.

I do not believe that Mr. Craig's offense, such as it was, rose to the level of a crime. Yes, he appears to have solicited sex from another man in a public restroom, and sex in such a location has been criminalized. However, considering that there were no complainants other than the arresting officer (i.e. no victims), and that he was enticed into committing his "crime" by that officer, I see Mr. Craig as a victim of anti-gay entrapment of a sort that, while once commonplace, is thankfully becoming less so. A cop who makes himself available for sex with another man cannot arrest that man in the name of justice, only in the name of discrimination against gays.

The solution to the "problem" of men's room sex is exactly what the airport where this occurred has subsequently done: cover the gap between the stalls that created the conditions for the sex play in the first place. Now they should also end the practice of entrapping men seeking gay sex.

By the way, should someone have been injured by Mr. Craig's behavior, such as a child or even unwilling adult being exposed to it, that WOULD legitimately be called a crime and should be punished. That did not happen in this case.

One more thing: Mr. Craig has demonstrated the ultimate in hypocrisy by blaming the gay rights movement for his difficulty with the law. This position caps his long career of opposition to gay rights with an ironic, and sad, demonstration of his self-destructive sexual confusion and willingness to demagogue the issue.


from
CNN.com: Judge won’t let Craig withdraw guilty plea:

A Minnesota judge has denied Sen. Larry Craig's request to withdraw his guilty plea to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge stemming from his arrest in a sex sting at an airport men's room.
art.craig.ap.jpg

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, sought to withdraw his guilty plea stemming from a sex sting in an airport restroom.

Hennepin County District Judge Charles Porter found Craig had entered the guilty plea "accurately, voluntarily and intelligently" and it was too late to withdraw his admission.

In a sharply worded, 27-page order, the judge found the Idaho Republican had freely given his plea after extensive discussions with prosecutors and after waiving his right to an attorney.

"The defendant, a career politician with a college education, is of at least above-average intelligence," Porter wrote. "He knew what he was saying, reading and signing."

There was no immediate response from Craig, who postponed his announced plan to resign from the Senate while seeking to withdraw his plea.

The senator's attorney, Billy Martin, argued last week that no judge signed off on the plea -- and, more importantly, that what Craig did in the restroom did not constitute disorderly conduct.

But Porter dismissed that argument, saying the facts police presented "provide a sufficient, supplemental, factual basis for a conviction of disorderly conduct."

The judge also dismissed Craig's argument that he was unfairly pressured to enter a quick guilty plea to avoid a public court appearance.

"This pressure was entirely perceived by the defendant and was not a result of any action by the police, the prosecutor or the court," he wrote.

The judge also said the transcript of the dialogue between Craig and the arresting police officer did not show "an improperly aggressive interrogation."

"There was no manifest injustice in the pressures to plead as perceived by the defendant," Porter wrote.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, who had advocated that Craig fight to withdraw his guilty plea, said he wasn't surprised by the judge's decision.

"It's a question of law," Specter said. "I thought he had a chance. No doubt it's difficult to withdraw a guilty plea."

The Republican Senate leadership canceled a scheduled press conference after the judge's decision was released.

Craig was arrested June 11 by Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport police, who accused him of making sexual overtures in an airport men's room to an undercover police officer.

Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in August but sought to withdraw the plea after news of his arrest surfaced the following month.

Craig, who says he is not gay, argued that he entered the plea without legal advice, fearing that the allegations would be made public.

Craig had said he would resign from the Senate if he could not get the guilty plea withdrawn by the end of September -- but then said he would await Porter's ruling before deciding whether to step down.



Utah Miner Families speak out on mine owner Bob Murray: ” I can’t stand to listen to the man.”

This story is both heart-breaking and infuriating. Ever wonder what the real definition of "canary in the coal mine" is? You can make a strong case that only a union can fill that role. Both the mine owners and the purported regulators have interests in concealing hazardous practices. The only ones with a real interest in preventing this tragedy from occurring were the miners themselves, but, without a union, they were powerless to act in their own behalf.

The free market ideologues who currently run the agencies in charge of regulating mine safety really don't believe in their jobs. They believe that workers who think the mines are unsafe are free to leave their job and find another. That sort of extremist approach allows preventable disasters like mine collapses (or, for that matter, levee failures) to occur, then blames the victims. Because the victims do not have any collective power to oppose this malfeasance by the regulators, they do not factor into the political equation.

If anyone needs proof why we need to restore the American union movement, take a look at this mine disaster. A strong union would have prevented it from happening.

from
Crooks and Liars:

mrsblack-utah-mines.jpgmrsphillips-utah-mine-family.jpg Some families testified yesterday in utter despair over their loss of a son and a husband. I’ve written a lot about the actions of the shady Utah mine owner Bob Murray. This is a heartbreaking look at how these families are dealing with the tragic deaths that happened in part because of the incompetent actions of Bob Murray.

video_wmv Download (113) | Play (88) video_mov Download (92) | Play (36)

Sheila Phillips - Mother of miner Brandon Phillips:

“It’s just hard to have hope, and have your heart broke every day, and have your grandson grow up without a dad…And I’d like to talk a little bit about Mr. Murray — I didn’t go to very many of the meetings because I couldn’t stand to listen to the man. He was talking about one day when they were moving the drill holes, and they had the pad ready for one and then they decided to drill it somewhere else, and I asked him why they didn’t have two going… and he said ‘we could drill you 1,000 holes and it wouldn’t make any difference.’ (transcripts and Digby below the fold)

They would find him, wouldn’t they? If they drilled at least 1,000? I just miss him…I would like to know where my son is in that hole, so I can leave a marker on that mountain.”

Wendy Black - Wife of miner Dale “Bird” Black:

“I want to know, if there are rules and regulations made to protect the miners, then who is to be hold accountable to make sure these are being followed? Please at least have one person with enough backbone to say ‘no more.’ MSHA has one job: mine safety and health administration. It would have taken just one MSHA official or one official from the company doing his job to have saved my husband’s life. Which one of them wasn’t doing his job?”

Digby on Murray:

Tragically, a whole bunch of people have died and others are injured but so far, we’ve heard almost nothing about this “star’s” background in pushing unsafe mining techniques and anti-union policies and neither have we heard anything about the fact that the man Bush named to be the “mine safety czar” was such a bad choice for the job that he had to give him a recess appointment with a Republican congress…read on

Monday, September 24, 2007

Nixon vs. the Imaginary “Jewish Cabal”

By Kenneth J. Hughes, Jr., Nixon tapes editor for the Presidential Recordings Program at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. On Monday September 24, 2007 the Presidential Recordings Program at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center publishes a collection of transcripts that illustrate the evolution of Nixon’s conspiracy theories about Jews, intellectuals and the Ivy League in the aftermath of the publication of the Pentagon Papers.

from the
History News Network (HNN):

The Federal Reserve is catnip to conspiracy theorists (just Google “Federal Reserve conspiracy” and see) but Richard Nixon may be the only political paranoid ever to form a conspiracy theory about a Fed Chairman whom he personally appointed.

In July 1971, dogged by rising unemployment and inflation, Nixon imagined the existence of a “Jewish cabal” involving Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur F. Burns and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The President had expected favorable press coverage on July 2, 1971, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced a big drop in the unemployment rate from 6.2 to 5.6 percent. When Nixon learned that the front-page of Washington’s Evening Star said, “The Labor Department warned that the dip might have been caused by a statistical quirk,” he ordered an investigation to find out who was responsible, saying, “He’s got to be fired.”

A statistical quirk did cause the drop, and Nixon knew it. (CAUTION: The following contains math.) It was the result of the standard seasonal adjustment BLS makes to the unemployment rate. Summer vacation for students changes the employment picture dramatically. There’s a big influx of students into the job market in June and a big exodus in September. It has nothing to do with the health of the economy, what economists call the “underlying” job market. It’s just students starting and ending their summer jobs. Here’s the tricky part: BLS conducted its unemployment survey during “the regular survey week, defined to be the week including the 12th day of each month.” In other words, officials look at the calendar, see which week contains the 12th, and do the survey from Sunday to Saturday of that week. In June 1971, the 12th fell on a Saturday, so the survey came early in the month, June 6-12, before many students had started vacation. Since there were fewer students looking for jobs at the time, the unemployment rate was lower. If the 12th had fallen on a Sunday, then the survey week would have been June 12 to June 18, there would have been more students out of school looking for jobs, and the “seasonal adjustment” would not have made it look like there was a big drop in unemployment. In fact, when Office of Management and Budget Director George P. Shultz informed the President of the drop in unemployment two days earlier, he’d described it, in these exact words, as “a statistical quirk.”

“I understand statistical aberrations,” Nixon told White House Political Operative Charles W. “Chuck” Colson the day after the announcement. “Why didn’t they say there were statistical aberrations when it went up?”

Well, they did. The same kind of statistical quirk arose the previous September, when the students were leaving their summer jobs to head back to school. (Once again, the 12th had fallen on a Saturday, so the survey week was September 6-12.) In September 1970, there had been big jump in unemployment, from 5.1 to 5.5 percent, its highest point in six years. “But officials of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, traditionally insulated from the political arena, were quick to explain,” the Washington Post reported on its front page on Oct. 3, 1970, “that the big increase could be attributed in large part to a quirk in timing.” BLS had treated the big rise in unemployment the same way it treated the big drop. Newspapers had used the same word both times -- “quirk.”

This made no difference to Nixon, who focused his wrath on the assistant commissioner of labor statistics, Harold Goldstein. Nixon had been wanting to get rid of Goldstein for months. When unemployment fell two-tenths of a percent in January 1971, Goldstein said at the regular BLS briefing that the drop was “marginally significant.” The next month, Goldstein described another two-tenths drop as “sort of mixed,” and the administration cancelled the regular BLS briefings altogether. (Again, it didn’t matter that Goldstein had also made little of small rises in unemployment.)

“I think the one thing, Mr. President, that you should insist upon,” Colson said, “is that they reorganize that Bureau. Now, in the process of reorganizing it, I think we’ll get this guy’s resignation. And we’ll put in a politician. That’s what we ought to have in there.”

Nixon agreed and summoned Shultz and Labor Secretary James D. Hodgson into his office. “I want them to do it even-handed. And they’re not doing it that way,” Nixon said. “Every [press] release has been loaded against us. And deliberately.” The President asked for a plan.

“Well,” Shultz said, “I think the only kind of organization that would be sensible under these circumstances is a reorganization that separates Goldstein from the employment, uh, unemployment figures and gets him into something else entirely.” One of Shultz’s aides already thought BLS needed reorganizing.

Later, alone with Colson, Nixon said, “Well, listen, are they all Jews over there?”

“Every one of them,” Colson said. “Well, a couple of exceptions.”

“See my point?”

“You know goddamn well they’re out to kill us.”

Before lunch, Nixon gave his chief of staff an order. “Now, point: [White House Personnel Director Frederic V.] Malek is not Jewish.”

“No,” H.R. “Bob” Haldeman said.

“All right, I want a look at any sensitive areas around where Jews are involved, Bob. See, the Jews are all through the government, and we have got to get in those areas. We’ve got to get a man in charge who is not Jewish to control the Jewish . . . do you understand?

“I sure do.”

“The government is full of Jews,” Nixon said. “Second, most Jews are disloyal. You know what I mean? You have a [White House Consultant Leonard] Garment and a [National Security Adviser Henry A.] Kissinger and, frankly, a [White House Speechwriter William L.] Safire, and, by God, they’re exceptions. But, Bob, generally speaking, you can’t trust the bastards. They turn on you.”

It would be more accurate to say that Jews couldn’t trust Nixon, that he turned on them. On July 24, 1971, he mentioned that Colson had found out sixteen BLS officials were registered Democrats, only one a registered Republican. “The point that he did not get into that I want to know, Bob, how many were Jews?” Nixon asked. “There’s a Jewish cabal, you know, running through this, working with people like [Fed Chairman] Burns and the rest. And they all only talk to Jews.”

In reality, Burns was a Nixon man, the chief conservative economist on the White House staff in 1969 before Nixon nominated him to the Fed. Congress set up the Fed to be independent of politics, but that didn’t stop Burns from secretly assuring Nixon that he would use its power over the economy to reduce unemployment for his re-election year. The only official Burns was conspiring with was Richard Nixon.

But the Fed chairman had incurred his patron’s displeasure. Nixon had wanted a conservative economist at the Fed, but grew angry when he got one. As unemployment rose to politically harmful levels, Nixon wanted the Fed to follow an “easy money” policy that would reduce interest rates, lowering the cost to business of borrowing money, expanding operations and hiring more employees. Burns, however, warned that this would fuel inflation. On the morning of Nixon’s “Jewish cabal” comment, the Times had run this front-page headline: “Burns Says Inflation Curb Is Making Scant Progress.”

“Now, what do you want to do with Arthur Burns?” Nixon asked Haldeman and Chief Domestic Policy Adviser John D. Ehrlichman that afternoon. “Raise his salary?” The President asked for a press leak suggesting that the President’s advisers had recommended increasing the membership of the Federal Reserve Board.

On July 28, the United Press International newswire ran an exclusive: “President Nixon is considering a proposal to double the size of the Federal Reserve Board, it was learned today. The suggestion, if put before Congress, could touch off a controversy rivaling President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempt to “pack” the Supreme Court.

“Administration officials also disclosed that Nixon rejected a request from Arthur F. Burns -- Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board -- for a 20,000 a year pay raise. Burns currently makes 42,500.

“Burns, however, denied he had ‘lobbied for an increase in salary.’ ”

Meanwhile, Haldeman tried to find out how many BLS employees were Jews. “What’s the status of your analysis of the BLS,” he wrote to Personnel Chief Malek on July 26, “specifically of the 21 key people? What is their demographic breakdown?”

Malek replied the next day. “We were able to obtain political affiliation checks on 35 of the 50 names listed on their organization chart.” There were 25 Democrats, 5 unregistered, 4 independents, and 1 Republican. “In addition, 13 out of the 35 fit the other demographic criterion that was discussed.” There was a handwritten note: “Most of these are at the top.”

Later that day, the President asked Ehrlichman, “Did you ever get the number of Jews that were in BLS?”

“I got their biographies yesterday. I’m having them analyzed,” Ehrlichman said. “Oh, the radio and the wires are full this morning that Arthur Burns wanted a salary increase.”

“I wonder where that came from,” Nixon said. “I’ll never forget Arthur sitting in here telling us a year ago there shouldn’t be a salary increase and that the Cabinet officers should give it back.”

Burns got smeared, but Goldstein got forced out. “Harold Goldstein will be moved to a routine, non-sensitive post in another part of BLS,” Malek reported to Haldeman on Sept. 8, 1971. “He has been told of this and will move quietly when the reorganization is announced.

“A sensitive and loyal Republican is also being recruited for the employment analysis function being vacated by Goldstein.”

Typically, when Richard Nixon told himself people were conspiring against him, it meant he was about to conspire against them.


/--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

UPDATE:

READ THIS PIECE: "NIXON'S JEW COUNT" BY TIMOTHY NOAH ON SLATE.COM

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

How Paranoid Was Nixon?

from HISTORY NEWS NETWORK

By Kenneth J. Hughes, Jr., Nixon tapes editor for the Presidential Recordings Program at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center.

It wasn’t the crime, but it wasn’t the cover-up, either. Something more basic took down a president 33 years ago.

Long before prosecutors identified him as an unindicted coconspirator, Richard Nixon was a conspiracy theorist. In the last 10 years, the government has systematically declassified hundreds of hours of White House tapes recorded on a voice-activated system that President Nixon had the Secret Service install in the oval office. They reveal a textbook example of what historian Richard Hofstadter called “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.”

Any group can be the target of a conspiracy theory. Nixon targeted three -- Jews, intellectuals, and Ivy Leaguers. Their connection wasn’t logical, but political. Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., summarized the reaction of the Republican bureaucratic old guard in the 1930s, when Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal brought new kids to town: “There were too many Ivy League men, too many intellectuals, too many radicals, too many Jews.” So when Congressman Dick Nixon, a young Republican from California on the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1940s, played a prominent role in exposing the Alger Hiss spy ring (which contained the tiniest fraction of the Jews, intellectuals and Ivy Leaguers who worked in the New Deal, but more than enough to make the right wing feel vindicated) Nixon rocketed to political stardom. As Garry Wills has noted, Nixon entered his 30s having never held public office and exited his 30s having been elected Vice President of the United States. The Hiss case made him. Later it would unmake him.

Nixon drew lessons from the Hiss case about Jews, intellectuals and the Ivy League.

“Remember that any intellectual is tempted to put himself above the law.”

“The guys from the best families are most likely to develop that arrogance that puts them above the law.”

“If they’re from any Eastern schools or Berkeley, those are particularly the potential bad ones.”

“The Jews are born spies,” with an “an arrogance that says -- that’s what makes a spy. He puts himself above the law.”

What’s important is that Nixon said the same thing about all three groups –- that they were arrogant and put themselves above the law. Hofstadter would have seen what was coming next. “A fundamental paradox of the paranoid style,” he wrote, “is the imitation of the enemy.” His examples include anti-Catholic Ku Klux Klansmen “donning priestly vestments” and the anti-Communist John Birch Society forming cells and employing front groups. Had he lived long enough to hear the Nixon tapes, Hofstadter could have added to the list an anti-Semitic, anti-intellectual, anti-Ivy League president arrogantly putting himself above the law. The Nixon quotes above come from June and July tapes of 1971, when he was on the verge of creating a secret police organization, the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), without congressional authority. The SIU is better known as “The Plumbers,” since one of its purposes was to plug “leaks” like that of the Pentagon Papers, a classified multi-volume Defense study of Vietnam War decision-making that the New York Times had begun publishing on June 13, 1971.

By coincidence (a common phenomenon conspiracy theorists have a hard time accepting), the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg, had Jewish ancestors, a career as a defense intellectual, and a degree from Harvard. By further coincidence, the man who conducted the Pentagon study, Leslie H. Gelb, and the man who recruited Gelb to the Defense Department, Morton H. Halperin, were also Jewish intellectuals with Ivy League degrees. While Halperin and Gelb let Ellsberg see a copy of the Pentagon Papers, at a time when Ellsberg had a security clearance and needed the study for Vietnam research, no investigation, legal or illegal, ever found evidence that either Halperin or Gelb took part in the leak. But political paranoids don’t need evidence. Nixon quickly formed a conspiracy theory and never let it go. In the privacy of the oval office, he lumped Halperin and Gelb together with Ellsberg as “the three Jews.”

It’s not like no one warned Nixon. The day the Times started publishing, former national security adviser Walt Rostow, after talking it over with Lyndon Johnson, called the White House and fingered Ellsberg. Alexander M. Haig, Nixon’s deputy national security adviser, asked about Halperin and Gelb, but Rostow didn’t think either would do it. “He said whoever did this could not be a good Democrat,” Haig reported to Nixon the next day. “He said he would have to be a radicalized individual.” Anyone leaking thousands of pages of classified documents must abandon all hope of future government employment. Ellsberg burned that bridge, but Gelb would later work for President Carter, Halperin for President Clinton.

Like other political paranoids, Nixon did have some real worries. Not necessarily the ones he put in his memoirs, about potential leaks threatening his diplomatic opening to China or nuclear arms negotiations. Both of these initiatives involved legitimate national security secrets. But the tapes show that Nixon’s first concern was with the potential exposure of an illegitimate secret, his bombing of Cambodia.

It’s questionable whether Nixon ever had the right to keep the bombing of North Vietnamese infiltration routes through Cambodia secret. He claimed later it was necessary for Cambodian Prince Sihanouk to preserve his public neutrality regarding the Vietnam War. By the time the Pentagon Papers were published in 1971, however, Sihanouk had been overthrown, and Cambodia’s government was no longer officially neutral, but pro-American. The foreign policy rationale for secrecy was gone, but a pressing political one remained. The bombing of Cambodia, once revealed, was bound to cause controversy. Nixon had won the 1968 election only after publicly pledging support for Lyndon Johnson’s decision to halt the bombing of North Vietnam. How would he explain that in his first months in office he had secretly started bombing another country?

On this subject Nixon was plagued by another coincidence. Halperin knew about the secret bombing. Henry A. Kissinger, Nixon’s national security adviser, had hired Halperin in 1969 onto the National Security Council staff. (One might wonder how someone with Nixon’s views of Jews, intellectuals and the Ivy League could employ, as his most trusted foreign policy adviser and de facto Secretary of State, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany whose intellectual credentials started with three degrees from Harvard. Bigots can make exceptions for some of their best friends, and Nixon did for Jews, intellectuals and Ivy Leaguers he personally deemed “loyal.” Kissinger, in his judgment, rose to the level of “loyal bastard.”) Kissinger had hired Halperin onto the National Security Council staff at the start of Nixon’s presidency. When someone leaked a story on one of the Cambodian bombing runs to the Times, the president had the FBI tap Halperin’s phone. The wiretap lasted 21 months. The FBI found no evidence that Halperin revealed any classified information. That was not enough for Nixon.

Halperin remained at the top of one enemies list (the Nixon White House had multiple lists) along with Gelb and the Washington think tank where both were scholars, the Brookings Institution. A White House aide claimed that Gelb took a Top Secret report on the 1968 bombing halt with him to Brookings. That was enough for Nixon. It prompted his most bizarre response to the Pentagon Papers: an order to break into Brookings and steal a report whose existence has never been confirmed.

The Brookings break-in never came off. But the Special Investigations Unit, employing CIA assets recruited from Florida’s Cuban American community, did manage to burglarize the Beverly Hills office of a psychiatrist who had treated Ellsberg. They were looking for information on the conspiracy. They got nothing. All the president’s men never could make a case against Halperin and Gelb. The Special Investigations Unit disbanded. But some of its members got back together during the campaign for one more job, and then another, and then their luck ran out and they got themselves arrested breaking into Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate complex.

The president had to make a choice. On the one hand, he could let the criminal investigation proceed unimpeded, knowing it would lead from the Watergate break-in to the earlier break-in at Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office to the impeachable offense of a president establishing a secret police agency that operated outside the Constitution and above the law. On the other hand, he could launch a cover-up. The choice Nixon made destroyed him, but the alternative would have destroyed him, too, and probably quicker.

In his parting remarks to the White House staff, on the day he relinquished the presidency, Nixon drew a simple moral lesson from his downfall: “Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.” This seeming confession of moral failure cloaked a subtle claim of moral justification: They started it, with their hate; he was only defending himself, fighting fire with fire.

Nixon’s private words, immortalized on tape, offer more complex lessons. Nixon had moral clarity, but it fueled his immorality. His conviction that he was fighting evil became his excuse for doing evil. His attempts to break an imaginary conspiracy ultimately led him to launch the real conspiracy that broke him.

From the archives: Nixon, Haldeman and Ziegler on Jews and spying

537-004 - Presidential Recordings Program:

Date: July 5, 1971
Time: Unknown between 4:03 pm and 6:15 pm
Location: Oval Office
Participants: President Nixon, Bob Haldeman, Ronald Ziegler

President Nixon: All of the Jewish families are close, but there’s this strange malignancy now that seems to creep among them. I don’t know, the radicalism. I can imagine how the fact that [Daniel] Ellsberg is in this must really tear a fellow like [National Security Adviser] Henry [Kissinger] to pieces, or [Consultant Leonard] Garment, you know. Just like the Rosenbergs and all that. That just has to kill him. And you feel horrible about it.

Ronald L. Ziegler: Couldn’t be guy by name of Snyder.

President Nixon: There ain’t none.

H.R. Haldeman: [chuckling] It would’ve been a Rosenstein that changed his name.

Ziegler laughs.

Ziegler: It is. Right. It’s always an Ellsberg or [unclear—overlapping voices].

President Nixon: They’re all Jews. Every one’s a Jew. [Former Director of Policy Planning and Arms Control for International Security Affairs Leslie H.] Gelb’s a Jew. [former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Morton H.] Halperin’s a Jew. But there are bad—[Alger] Hiss was not a Jew. So that proves something. [a99:40] Very interesting thing. So few of those who engage in espionage are Negroes. Very lucky that way. [Unclear] As a matter of fact, very few of them become Communists. If they do, they either, like, they get into Angela Davis, they’re more of an activist type, and they throw bombs and this and that. But the Negroes, have you ever noticed? There are damn few Negro spies.

Haldeman: They’re not intellectual enough. Not smart enough.

President Nixon: It may be.

Haldeman: They’re not smart enough to be spies, they’re not intellectual enough—

President Nixon: The Jews are born spies. You notice how many of them are? They’re just in it up to their necks. Haldeman: Well, got a basic devious abil—deviousness, that— President Nixon: Well, also, an arrogance, an arrogance that says—that’s what makes a spy. He puts himself above the law.

Ziegler: Yeah.

President Nixon: Other than spies for the pay. I’m talking about the spies that do it because of idealism.

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Galloway to be suspended from Commons over Iraq

from the London Times Online:

GEORGE GALLOWAY, the MP who campaigned against the Iraq war, is to be suspended from parliament [for one month] over his links to the United Nations oil-for-food programme in Iraq. The parliamentary standards watchdog will rule this week that Galloway failed properly to declare his links to a charitable appeal partially funded from money made by selling Iraqi oil under Saddam Hussein, according to a source close to the inquiry...

In 1998 Galloway founded the Mariam Appeal, which campaigned for the lifting of sanctions on Iraq. The appeal, which paid Galloway’s wife and funded international travel for the MP, received almost £450,000 from Fawaz Zureikat, a Jordanian businessman who was also a trustee of the appeal. It subsequently emerged that more than half of this money came from the proceeds of Iraqi oil sales...

The Mariam Appeal, which raised more than £1.4m, has never filed any accounts and the parliamentary authorities have been unable to account for some of the expenditure.

According to the Times, Galloway plans to fight the charges. This should be interesting...

Saturday, July 7, 2007

De Villepin likely to face conspiracy charges

from the London Times Online

Police searched the home of Dominique de Villepin, the former French Prime Minister, yesterday as judges appeared close to charging him with conspiring to implicate Nicolas Sarkozy, now the President, in a corruption scandal. Criminal charges are thought likely after examining judges unearthed new evidence that appears to put Mr de Villepin, 56, close to the heart of the so-called Clearstream affair.

The scandal, under investigation since 2005, involves forged bank records that suggested falsely that Mr Sarkozy and other senior figures had received big bribes in the sale of French warships to Taiwan.

Mr de Villepin was serving as Foreign and then Interior Minister and Mr Sarkozy, his rival for the future presidency, was Finance, then Interior Minister.
WILL CHIRAC BE IMPLICATED IN THIS CONSPIRACY TO SMEAR SARKOZY?

As Daniel Johnson writes on Commentary Magazine's "contentions" blog:

The trail leads back via the computer files of a senior intelligence officer, General Philippe Rondot, to two conversations in May 2004 between de Villepin and a defense contractor, Jean-Louis Gregorin, who has already been charged with conspiracy. Apparently Gregorin told the general that he had “received instructions from Dominique de Villepin.” On another occasion, de Villepin “was apparently jubilant but also concerned not to have his name appear in the affair.” These notes look very much like the smoking gun that police were looking for.

They may yet catch an even bigger fish. Two weeks ago Chirac rejected a judicial summons to be interrogated about the Clearstream affair, on the grounds that he enjoys presidential immunity. But that defense may not be enough to protect him if it becomes clear that he, too, knew of and approved the plot to destroy Sarkozy’s reputation. There is no recent example of a French head of state being involved in such a serious criminal conspiracy—we have to go back to Marshal Pétain.


(h/t Solomonia.com)

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Why "vote caging" matters...a lot

The Carpetbagger Report » Blog Archive » Why ‘caging’ matters

Political Hiring in Justice Division Probed

read the complete Washington Post article at washingtonpost.com

‘Everything Schlozman did was political. And he said so’

from The Carpetbagger Report :

When it comes to the politicization of the Justice Department, Bradley Schlozman is at the heart of two unrelated scandals. The first was Schlozman’s decision as the former U.S. Attorney for Kansas City, to bring highly dubious indictments against a left-leaning voter-registration group shortly before the midterm elections. Schlozman already appears to be busted on this one.

The other deals with Schlozman’s responsibilities as the deputy head of the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department. He assured the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, a couple of weeks ago that his employment decisions were entirely above-board, and not at all based on political considerations.

Mr. Schlozman, once again, it appears your pants are on fire.

Karen Stevens, Tovah Calderon and Teresa Kwong had a lot in common. They had good performance ratings as career lawyers in the Justice Department’s civil rights division. And they were minority women transferred out of their jobs two years ago — over the objections of their immediate supervisors — by Bradley Schlozman, then the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights.

Schlozman ordered supervisors to tell the women that they had performance problems or that the office was overstaffed. But one lawyer, Conor Dugan, told colleagues that the recent Bush appointee had confided that his real motive was to “make room for some good Americans” in that high-impact office, according to four lawyers who said they heard the account from Dugan.

In another politically tinged conversation recounted by former colleagues, Schlozman asked a supervisor if a career lawyer who had voted for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a onetime political rival of President Bush, could still be trusted.

That last one is a particular favorite. In the fall of 2004, Schlozman asked DoJ supervisors about the “loyalty” of division lawyer Angela Miller. She was a Republican who clerked for a conservative federal appeals judge, but Schlozman learned (it’s not clear how) that Miller backed McCain in a 2000 primary. Schlozman asked Miller’s bosses, “Can we still trust her?”

When the Bush gang insisted on “good Americans,” they applied a fairly narrow set of standards.

Indeed, not all of the standards were ideological. Schlozman targeted minority women, whose on-the-job performance was unquestioned, apparently because Schlozman wasn’t convinced that they would be team players. In other words, to qualify as a “good American,” you not only had to be conservative, but you also had to be a white guy.

And these were the standards used by the man Bush asked to help lead the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.

Now, keep in mind, Schlozman acknowledged that he bragged about hiring Republicans and conservatives for the Civil Rights Division, but insisted it was all talk. To apply partisan/ideological standards to career employees at a government agency would be illegal, so Schlozman insisted that nothing improper took place.

But literally everyone around him believes he was lying. Blatantly.

“When he said he didn’t engage in political hiring, most of us thought that was just laughable,” said one lawyer in the section, referring to Schlozman’s June 5 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Everything Schlozman did was political. And he said so.” […]

Schlozman and several deputies also took an unusual interest in the assignment of office responsibility for appellate cases and, according to the lawyers and one of the supervisors, repeatedly ordered Flynn to take cases away from career lawyers with expertise and hand them to recent hires whose resumes listed membership in conservative groups, including the Federalist Society.

Read the whole thing. It’s breathtaking.

Friday, May 4, 2007

Goodling Ex-Aide to Gonzales Accused Of Bias - washingtonpost.com

Ex-Aide to Gonzales Accused Of Bias - washingtonpost.com

The Justice Department has launched an internal investigation into whether Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's former White House liaison illegally took party affiliation into account in hiring career federal prosecutors, officials said yesterday.

The allegations against Monica M. Goodling represent a potential violation of federal law and signal that a joint probe begun in March by the department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility has expanded beyond the controversial dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

The revelations about Goodling were among several developments yesterday in connection with the firings, including a new subpoena seeking presidential adviser Karl Rove's e-mails and new accusations from two of the dismissed U.S. attorneys.

In newly released statements, the two alleged that they were threatened by Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty's chief of staff immediately before Gonzales testified in the Senate in January.

Paul K. Charlton of Phoenix and John McKay of Seattle said that Michael J. Elston called them on Jan. 17 and offered an implicit agreement of Gonzales's silence in exchange for their continuing not to publicly discuss their removals. Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee the next day and refused to provide details about the firings.

"My handwritten and dated notes of this call reflect that I believed Mr. Elston's tone was sinister and that he was prepared to threaten me further if he concluded I did not intend to continue to remain silent about my dismissal," McKay wrote in response to questions from the House Judiciary Committee.

James B. Comey Extols Fired Prosecutors - washingtonpost.com

Former Supervisor Extols Fired Prosecutors - washingtonpost.com

James B. Comey, the Justice Department's second in command from 2003 until August 2005, also told a House Judiciary subcommittee that although he was the "direct supervisor" of all U.S attorneys, he was never informed about an effort by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and his aides to remove a large group of prosecutors that began in early 2005.

Friday, April 20, 2007

Purged U.S. Attorneys Slam Gonzales Testimony

from Think Progress

Purged U.S. Attorneys Slam Gonzales Testimony

Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales testified yesterday that the firings of eight
U.S. Attorneys was “justified and should stand.” Now those attorneys
are reacting.

Former Washington U.S. Attorney John McKay:

Gonzales cited McKay’s authorship of a letter
criticizing delays in implementing a law enforcement
information-sharing program, as well as comments he made to the Seattle
P-I last fall about the staffing levels in his office.

“Generally I recollect there being serious concerns about his judgment,” Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee. […]

I think it’s a sad day for the Department of Justice,”
said McKay, who previously represented the Western District of
Washington. “The attorney general missed an opportunity to testify with
honor.”

Asked to elaborate, McKay declined, saying, “The senators savaged him enough. I

certainly don’t want to talk about his absurd allegations. He’s
obviously so disconnected he has no idea what my performance was like
and what my judgment was like, and I’ll just leave it at that
.”

Former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias:

Iglesias watched the hearings from a naval base at Newport, R.I. He’s finishing a naval reserve deployment and called the hearings “painful to watch.”

“I can only liken Mr. Gonzales’ testimony to a bloodied swimmer in a shark tank. He’s really getting beat up,” Iglesias said. […]

“Now we’re hearing from the A.G. that he apologized on how this was
handled. That doesn’t quite get us to where we need to go which was
that they shouldn’t have done it. Kyle Sampson stated that under oath a
couple of weeks ago, that the Department of Justice should have never
gone down this path and if he had it to do over he would have never put
me on that list,” Iglesias said.

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Plan to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys originated with political adviser Karl Rove





NPR : Documents Show Justice Ranking U.S. Attorneys

According to someone who's had conversations with White House officials, the plan to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys originated with political adviser Karl Rove. It was seen as a way to get political cover for firing the small number of U.S. attorneys the White House actually wanted to get rid of. Documents show the plan was eventually dismissed as impractical.




Powered by ScribeFire.

CONTACT

adamhollandblog [AT] gmail [DOT] com
http://www.wikio.com