Hitting the Road

"On the road again..."

After a frenzied weekend, I'm almost packed up and ready to go. The movers are coming for the furniture today and after that I'm going to relax before the long trip that begins tomorrow.

The current plan is to go to Denver and stay at my cousin's place for a day or two, then continue on to LA to make it there in time for August 10th, which is when I'm going to move in to my new apartment. I've come up with four different routes to get to Denver through the Midwest or the South, I haven't yet decided which one I'm going to take.

I don't know what kind of Internet access I'll have on the way, so my blogging (if any) will be very sporadic. I will be keeping a journal with detailed notes of the trip and am also bringing along a digital camera. I'll refer back to the journal for writing the entries from each day of the trip and will upload photos as soon as I get the chance.

In the meantime, I will steal a line from Jack Bauer: "I'm going dark."

A Fun Thing to Do

I've been out of town the past few days so I have not been able to get my regular dose of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.

Stephen Colbert took the morning shows out to the woodshed and proceeded to systematically tear them apart using sarcasm alone over their handling of his "interview" with Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Florida).

Moral of the story: Did everyone forget Colbert's skewering of President Bush at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner earlier this year? If you mess with this man, you do so at your own peril, and it won't be pretty.

Closing Up Shop in DC

I'll be off this thing for the next couple of days while I pack up my apartment in anticipation for the big move next Monday. Once all my stuff is packed up and ready to go, if I have time I'll sit down and do some writing before I leave town.

In the meantime, I've updated the playlist in the right hand column. All of the songs contain references to or are about California or Los Angeles, some good (by that I mean positive, happy, cheery, etc.), some not.

Career Retrospective

The Onion takes us through the highlights of Dan Rather's career at CBS.

Community Outreach

Henry Schuster has a new column this week exploring the reasons behind the popular support for Hezbollah within the Lebanese Shiite community.

Schuster sums it all up in one sentence:

People here see Hezbollah as a political movement and a social service provider as much as it is a militia that delivers the goods for its followers, in this traditionally poor and dispossessed Shiite community.

The solidarity with Hezbollah is not limited to purely religious grounds. Schuster reports that a CNN crew found Hezbollah had moved into a school in a Christian neighborhood of Beirut that was being used as a shelter by refugees and were organizing relief efforts.

The Counterterrorism Blog has an entry from its special correspondent on the ground in Beirut reporting that Hezbollah has penetrated Christian areas in Lebanon.

This is as much a failure of fulfilling basic social services by the government as it is a good PR and grassroots outreach and recruitment effort by Hezbollah. Until the Lebanese government and the international community tries to break the goodwill and long standing relationship between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Shiites by offering them other options to Hezbollah, it will continue to be business as usual even after the current crisis is over.

Wrong Number

From Editor and Publisher:

'Wash Post' Error: Ran Sex Phone Number for Lebanon Evacuees

By E&P Staff

Published: July 21, 2006 12:25 AM ET

NEW YORK The Washington Post ran an article Thursday that included a phone number for evacuees in Lebanon to call -- but it turned out to be a number for a sex line.

The paper corrected it online but the number already appeared in print on A19.

The Web site Wonkette first reported it. A staffer called the "800" and got, the site said, this message: “Feeling horny? Try these red hot lines from National. Live hot fun at just 69 cents per minute.”

The lesson, it said: "Americans seeking information about evacuations of US citizens in Lebanon should just relax, man."

The Other Nuclear Option

Photo from the Nuclear Weapon Archive.

The Washington Post has a front page story today on the expansion of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program.

From the article:

Pakistan has begun building what independent analysts say is a powerful new reactor for producing plutonium, a move that, if verified, would signal a major expansion of the country's nuclear weapons capabilities and a potential new escalation in the region's arms race.

Satellite photos of Pakistan's Khushab nuclear site show what appears to be a partially completed heavy-water reactor capable of producing enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year, a 20-fold increase from Pakistan's current capabilities, according to a technical assessment by Washington-based nuclear experts.
...
The assessment's key judgments were endorsed by two other independent nuclear experts who reviewed the commercially available satellite images, provided by Digital Globe, and supporting data. In Pakistan, officials would not confirm or deny the report, but a senior Pakistani official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that a nuclear expansion was underway.

"Pakistan's nuclear program has matured. We're now consolidating the program with further expansions," the official said. The expanded program includes "some civilian nuclear power and some military components," he said.

The development raises fresh concerns about a decades-old rivalry between Pakistan and India. Both countries already possess dozens of nuclear warheads and a variety of missiles and other means for delivering them.

This is coming from the same country that was the hub of the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network, which sold nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.

This is also a country with a social element that has strong Islamist, anti-Western sentiment bubbling under the surface. The head of state, General Pervez Musharraf, is caught in a very delicate political balancing act, where he has to try to keep the United States and its allies happy with assistance, intelligence, and cooperation in the fight against terrorism and rebuliding Afghanistan, as well as the more extreme elements of Pakistani society which have already plotted to assassinate him three times and tried it twice.

About a year ago, CNN Presents did a one hour program on the possibility of a terrorist attack involving nuclear or radiological material. One of the scenarios explored in the program as to how a terrorist organization might get the materials for an attack was through Pakistan. One worst case scenario for this would be if Musharraf is overthrown or assassinated, and a new Islamist government hostile towards the west takes power. If that happened, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal would effectively be at its disposal to use against whoever it wants.

Also worth keeping in mind is the historical cultural and political tensions between India and Pakistan which have flared up from time to time. It wasn't too long ago that Pakistan and India came very close to breaking out into a full-fledged war, and both sides had nuclear weapons stockpiles ready to go.

More recently, you had President Bush's visit to India back in March which resulted in a landmark deal with the Indian government on its civilian nuclear program, and the train attacks in Mumbai which killed 174 people a few weeks ago, leading some to speculate whether Pakistan was involved.

Other than in the Middle East, I couldn't think of a worse possible scenario where two opposing countries with a history of conflict that also have nuclear weapons aimed at each other and ready to fire at any moment.

Hezbollah Sleeper Cells on Stand By?

The Counterterrorism Blog offers some insight into a disturbing potential development in the current violence in the Middle East, attributed to news first reported by the Jerusalem Post: that Hezbollah sleeper cells set up outside of Lebanon with backing from Iran have been placed on standby to possibly carry out terror attacks against Israeli or Jewish targets around the world.

I'm copying and pasting their analysis here, but if you want to read the relevant excerpts of the original Jerusalem Post story, head over to their site.

A word of caution: At this point, there's no source for the claim that Hizballah cells have been put on standby. The first paragraph states that the Jerusalem Post learned this today, but leaves out any mention of who the Post learned this from. Although the second paragraph cites Shin Bet as a source, this is only for confirmation that it "instructed embassies, consulates and Jewish institutions it was responsible for abroad to raise their level of awareness" -- it doesn't state that Shin Bet told the Post that Hizballah cells were put on standby. Putting these institutions on alert seems a wise move even if there were no evidence that Hizballah cells were on standby.

Counterterrorism consultant Dan Darling comments in an e-mail to me: "I expect that Hezbollah cells, sleeper or otherwise, were put on notice that they might be called upon to carry out attacks in the event that things started to get nasty. If you're running an international terrorist organization, this would seem to me to be a prudent move before you engage in an unprovoked cross-border raid and kidnapping that seems almost certain to spark a regional conflict. I've been operating under the assumption that they had cells in place to carry off attacks at least in Europe should they desire to utilize them since the conflict first started . . . ."

This story is worth following, as Hizballah's activation of sleeper cells would substantially raise what are already large stakes.

This is not the plot to an episode of 24. This is a very real and disturbing possibility which if true, could escalate the violence even further in the hornet's nest that is now the Middle East. Given their background and track record (see pages 8-9 of the file), and more info available here, I would not take this lightly if I were involved in any counterterrorism, intelligence, or diplomatic circles working on a solution to this crisis.

The Devil is in the Classified Details

The Associated Press has an interesting story on how convicted former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham used the classified appropriations process in his capacity as a member of the House Intelligence Committee to steer appropriations money for projects of his choice that would "benefit him or his associates."

Here's the basics of the AP story:

An independent investigation has found that imprisoned former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham took advantage of secrecy and badgered congressional aides to help slip items into classified bills that would benefit him and his associates.

The finding comes from Michael Stern, an outside investigator hired by the House Intelligence Committee to look into how Cunningham was able to carry out the scheme. Stern is working with the committee to fix vulnerabilities in the way top-secret legislation is written, said congressional officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the committee still is being briefed on Stern's findings.

Cunningham's case has put a stark spotlight on the oversight of classified - or "black" - budgets. Unlike legislation dealing with social and economic issues, intelligence bills and parts of defense bills are written in private, in the name of national security.

That means it is up to members of Congress and select aides with security clearances to ensure that legislation is appropriate.

Speaking from personal experience at my previous job where on a few occasions I had to go through similar documents and trying to fact check or analyze the data they contain, government budget documents which are available to the public generally tend to be monstrous in size and mind-numbingly dull in scope and detail to begin with. What makes this budget bill different is that anything dealing with the intelligence community budget is classified, because the U.S. government does not want to give any hints to foreign governments or intelligence agencies any ideas about what the CIA, NSA, NRO, NGA, DIA, or other agencies in the U.S. intelligence community alphabet soup might be up to based on how much money they're getting from Congress.

As the AP story points out, pork projects buried in classified budgets are nothing new, citing Senators Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) and Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) as examples. However, given all of the recent controversies involving the practice of earmarking, as well as some of the projects which were going to receive congressional funding (i.e. the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska), it would not be surprising to me if at some point in the future, a massive overhaul of the appropriations and earmarking process will be necessary.

Finally, the article also adds that when dealing with classified budgets the judgment is strictly up to the committee members and a handful of aides who have the appropriate security clearances. Because of this, no outside interest groups (i.e. Citizens Against Government Waste or POGO) or the media can go through it and look for possible evidence of pork projects, wasteful spending, conflicts of interest, or corruption.

Bringing Out the Big Guns

From the Hotline, we find out that Joe Lieberman is calling in the heavy artillery:

Lieberman Campaign Announces Former President Bill Clinton to Campaign for Sen. Joe Lieberman

Will Make Campaign Stop Next Monday in Waterbury
July 20, 2006

Hartford, CT- The Lieberman Campaign announced today that Former President Bill Clinton will make a campaign stop for Sen. Joe Lieberman next Monday, July 24 in Waterbury.

"We are thrilled to have President Clinton come to the state to campaign for Sen. Lieberman," said Marion Steinfels, Lieberman campaign spokesman. “It is not only a big day for our campaign, but it is a big day for Waterbury and Connecticut.”

Clinton and Lieberman have known each other since Clinton worked on Lieberman’s first campaign for State Senate in 1970 while he was in school at Yale in New Haven. Years later, Lieberman was the first Senator outside the South to endorse Clinton in his 1992 Presidential Campaign.

Waterbury has been the site of several high profile political visits including a visit by then Sen. Kennedy on the eve of the 1960 presidential election.

The Downward Spiral

On Tuesday, former Christian Coalition organizer Ralph Reed became the first victim of the Jack Abramoff scandal at the ballot box.

According to Rich Lowry at the Corner, in trying to explain his loss Reed's people point the finger directly at John McCain and the press (emphasis is mine):

Cagle v. Reed [Rich Lowry]

Here's the view of what happened from the Reed camp: Once the Abramoff stuff exploded, it was going to be a very tough road for Reed. Glen Bolger did a poll for the campaign in January showing that it was possible for Reed to win, but his negatives were very high and he would have to squeak by. Reed had a choice to make, and decided to stay in the race and try to make it happen. In the end, soft Republicans appear to have broken very strongly against him in the suburbs. There may have been some cross-over Democratic votes in the open primary, but that alone can't account for a 54-46% loss. Reed's connection to the Abramoff stuff had broken back in the summer of 2004, so it couldn't have been predicted that it would be such a huge deal even now. But it was. The Reed camp blames John McCain for playing payback for his 2000 primary defeat with a campaign of leaks, and the press, of course, was happy to pile on. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran dozens and dozens of stories about the scandal. Outside liberal groups might have spent upwards of a quarter-million on the race. The Reed team felt good at the close of the race, but, in the end, they just couldn't scratch it out.

Reed has gone a long way from this:

Time Magazine cover boy in 1995:

The New Hampshire senate, which usually deigns to listen only to would-be Presidents, paid close attention to his message. The ranks of conservative Christians, Reed said, are now "too large, too diverse, too significant to be ignored by either major political party." Not long ago, America's Christian right was dismissed as a group of pasty-faced zealots, led by divisive televangelists like Jerry Falwell, who helped yank the Republican Party so far to the right that moderates were frightened away. But Reed has emerged as the movement's fresh face, the choirboy to the rescue, a born-again Christian with a fine sense of the secular mechanics of American politics. His message, emphasizing such broadly appealing themes as support for tax cuts, has helped make the Christian Coalition one of the most powerful grass-roots organizations in American politics. Its 1.6 million active supporters and $25 million annual budget, up from 500,000 activists and a $14.8 million budget just two years ago, hold a virtual veto on the Republican nominee for President, and will exert an extraordinary influence over who will occupy the Oval Office beginning in 1997.

To this:

(Abramoff is the one furthest to the left wearing the black shirt and baseball cap. Reed is the one to Abramoff's immediate left, wearing khakis and a long sleeve shirt.)
From the Washington Post:

[Abramoff] looked to Reed, the former Christian Coalition leader who operated several consulting companies. Reed has acknowledged receiving as much as $4 million from Abramoff and his associate, Scanlon, to organize grass-roots anti-gambling campaigns in Louisiana and Texas. The money came from casino-rich Indian tribes, including the Coushattas, but Reed said that although he knew of Abramoff's connection to the tribes, he did not know until media accounts surfaced last summer that his fees came from gambling proceeds.

Reed then turned to Dobson to marshal his vast network of evangelicals, Abramoff's e-mails show.

If you thought that arrangement sounded bad, their own words in e-mails obtained by investigators and the press make it sound even worse. Again, from the Washington Post (emphasis is mine):

Among those e-mails was one from Reed to Abramoff in late 1998: "I need to start humping in corporate accounts! . . . I'm counting on you to help me with some contacts." Within months, Abramoff hired him to lobby on behalf of the Mississippi Band of Choctaws, who were seeking to prevent competitors from setting up facilities in nearby Alabama.

In 1999, Reed e-mailed Abramoff after submitting a bill for $120,000 and warning that he would need as much as $300,000 more: "We are opening the bomb bays and holding nothing back."

In 2004, when the casino payments to Reed were disclosed, Reed issued a statement declaring "no direct knowledge of their [Abramoff's law firm's] clients or interests." In 2005, however, Senate investigators released a 1999 e-mail from Abramoff to Reed explicitly citing the client: "It would be really helpful if you could get me invoices [for services performed] as soon as possible so I can get Choctaw to get us checks ASAP."

One of the most damaging e-mails was sent by Abramoff to partner Michael Scanlon, complaining about Reed's billing practices and expenditure claims: "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him." Scanlon and Abramoff have pleaded guilty to defrauding clients.

And finally to this:

(Photo from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

I recommend reading the entire AJC article linked above, but here's a key passage:

Reed often blamed "the liberal media" for focusing on the his dealings with Abramoff, but in fact many evangelical Christians were also disaffected.

Clint Austin of Marietta is a former Reed employee who ran Reed's successful bid to become state Republican Party chairman in 2001. On Monday, Austin, now a state Capitol lobbyist, posted on the Internet an article in which he explained why he would not vote for Reed.

"My reason for abandoning my support of Ralph is simple: Ralph Reed's words and actions do not match up," Austin wrote.

I'd say Tom DeLay was the first political victim of the Abramoff scandal, but he decided to abandon his re-election effort instead of sticking around to run against Nick Lampson. Both Texas state parties are awaiting a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to see whether they will uphold or overturn the ruling by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks earlier this month forcing DeLay back in the race. However, DeLay has additional problems with the ongoing investigation by DA Ronnie Earle in Austin, so his legal and political problems weren't only Abramoff-related.

How this will bode for other Abramoff-tainted lawmakers (i.e. Bob Ney, Conrad Burns) remains to be seen, but since the Washington Post reported the first Abramoff story back in 2004 and kept revealing more about his lobbying scheme, the name Abramoff has become politically radioactive in DC. Whether this will matter to their constituents back home when both men are up for re-election in November, we'll have to keep watching both races as well as any further revelations from Abramoff-related investigations by the government and the media.

For further reference material, check out this section of the Washington Post archiving all of its Abramoff stories, for which they won a Pulitzer Prize.

Hollywood Goes to Connecticut

I suspected this was going to happen, but this AP report confirms it.

Gore/Lieberman was such an odd pairing to go to Hollywood and ask for their money and support, given their well-documented criticisms of the entertainment industry. I think what happened in 2000 was that a lot of the Hollywood scene either held their breath and voted for Gore/Lieberman in spite of whatever disagreements they might have had with either of them (i.e. Barbra Streisand, Paul Newman), or got behind Ralph Nader (i.e. Tim Robbins, Michael Moore).

Given their criticism of the entertainment industry, I was assuming that if Gore/Lieberman got elected, that the PMRC was going to move into the West Wing. Given the well-documented dislike of President Bush in the entertainment industry, and his post-election political moves to the left on issues like Iraq, Gore has endeared himself to the Hollywood crowd. Lieberman has continued to be his usual self, and hasn't made any friends in Hollywood by supporting the Iraq war.

Blowback

Be careful where you point those...

Previously, I mentioned as one example the recent Mike DeWine campaign ad attacking Sherrod Brown's national security credentials which used images of a burning World Trade Center.

The Hotline has the rebuttal ad from the Ohio Democratic Party.

At one point, the voiceover says Senator DeWine "failed us on the Intelligence Committee before 9/11 and on weapons of mass destruction."

Maybe somebody should tell the Ohio Democratic Party that there are Democrats on the Intelligence Committee as well? How was their performance before 9/11 and on weapons of mass destruction any better?

Barry Bonds Indictment Scenarios

"Would I lie to you?"
Photo from AP/Sports Illustrated.

The Washington Post is reporting that Major League Baseball is weighing possible courses of disciplinary action to take against San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds if he is indicted by a federal grand jury on potential tax evasion, money laundering, and/or perjury charges.

Anyone who knows the American legal system will tell you that Bonds is innocent until proven guilty, and an indictment in and of itself is not an admission or conviction of wrongdoing on Bonds' part.

The Post cites an anonymous source saying that he believes MLB Commissioner Bud Selig "believes he may be empowered by baseball's collective bargaining agreement to suspend him." They also cite another anonymous source saying that because of a mechanism in the collective bargaining agreement where players can challenge a suspension, "Bonds, with the union's backing, almost certainly would file a grievance in this case, according to a source familiar with the union's discussions."

The Post also points out "No precedent is known to exist for an athlete to be suspended successfully following an indictment."

Regardless of whether Bonds is or is not indicted, or if he is conclusively proven innocent or guilty of any of the accusations, his personal and professional reputation might as well be flushed down the toilet. Even if he breaks Hank Aaron's home run record, I think the fans, media, and his peers will either consciously or subconsciously view the accomplishment with a giant asterisk.

There will always be questions of whether or not he was on performance enhancing drugs while he was in his home run-hitting heyday, and those questions will continue to swirl around him for the rest of his career, if not his life. Want proof? Exhibit A: Mark McGwire.

As a witness during last spring's baseball steroids abuse hearing by the House Government Reform Committee, McGwire destroyed his own reputation and legacy through comments like these in his opening statement:

"Asking me or any other player to answer questions about who took steroids in front of television cameras will not solve the problem. If a player answers no, he simply will not be believed. If a player answers yes, he risks public scorn and endless government investigations. My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family and myself. I intend to follow their advice."

His response to a question by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) on whether he would plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination:

"I'm not here to talk about the past. I'm here to be positive about this subject."

His response to other questions from the Committee, as reported by CBS News:

Asked whether use of steroids was cheating, McGwire said: "That's not for me to determine."

To a couple of other questions, all he would say is: "I'm retired."

Don't forget about Rafael Palmeiro, whose Clinton-esque "I did not have sexual relations with that steroid" denial in his opening statement resulted in the Committee investigating him for possibly lying under oath.

As a final observation, I think it would be safe to say Bonds should consider himself lucky that he wasn't subpoenaed to testify at the steroids hearing last year. Regardless of what does or does not happen, Bonds is undergoing a PR death by a thousand cuts, and unless he does something drastic to change public perception of him and try to improve his image, he's screwed in the court of public opinion.

All My Sins Remembered

"Lamont, in thy candidacy be all my sins remembered."
Photo from the Associated Press/LA Times/Hartford Courant

Following up on the challenge to Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, I was doing some reading in several newspaper accounts. While most of them seem to mention Lieberman's unwavering support of the Iraq war as the reason that he is the target of liberal bloggers, I did some digging at several prominent liberal blogs who are leading the opposition to Lieberman. While the war is a big issue with all of them, each have their own axe to grind with Lieberman, over less publicized issues than Iraq, some of which I didn't even know about until I started looking into this.

Before I continue this post, in the interest of full disclosure I have no personal interest nor political affiliation for or against Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman, or Alan Schlesinger. I have no ties or past residency to the state of Connecticut either. I'm writing on this purely as an outside observer looking in.

Rather than write about each issue myself, I will link to a different bloggers' comments on the issues where they criticize Lieberman's record.

Terri Schiavo.
Abu Ghraib, Clinton impeachment, and confirmation of Alberto Gonzales.
Defending President Bush from Democratic critics over the Iraq war.
Voting against the Senate Democrats' filibuster of Samuel Alito.
Emergency contraception/reproductive rights issues.
Social Security.
His mild-mannered performance during the 2000 vice presidential debate against Dick Cheney, compared to his aggressive tone during the recent debate with Ned Lamont.

I don't think any of these issues individually would be enough to propel a serious challenger to Lieberman or any longtime incumbent. However, as I said a few days earlier, in Lieberman's case unfortunately for him, he happens to represent a liberal, solidly blue state in New England. His positions on the issues I've linked to in this post, as highlighted by partisan bloggers working for his defeat, do not help to endear him with partisan liberal Democrats who tend to come out and vote in low turnout primary contests during congressional midterm elections.

Hartford Courant columnist Paul Bass went through the skeletons in Lieberman's closet.

The Hotline's Chuck Todd nailed it as best as any political reporter I've seen, getting right to the heart of Lieberman's problems and all of the issues that are fueling the Ned Lamont insurgency in this column from last week.

First and foremost, Lieberman's problems aren't all about Iraq.

His unwavering support for President Bush on Iraq was simply the tipping point. If this was just about Iraq, then many of the rank-and-file Democratic activists who are supporting Lamont would be biting their tongues on Iraq and sticking with Lieberman. The "Iraq" in this equation has been oversimplified.

Lieberman has been living on the edge with the party's base for some time, beginning with his "sermon on the mount" critique of former President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky mess. During the 2000 campaign, there were two moments many Democrats won't ever forget involving Lieberman: (1) his overly nice-guy approach toward Dick Cheney in the vice presidential debate; and (2) when he went against Al Gore's legal team in regards to the rules involving military ballots.

Individually, these moments were painted positively by the press, and they added to Lieberman's reputation as a different kind of politician.

But, taken in total, these deviations from the party paint a picture of Lieberman as a "me-first" politician to the extreme. (I say "extreme" because all politicians are "me-first" to a point.) In short, many Democrats believe Lieberman has built his national reputation by contrasting himself in a positive light against rank-and-file party members. It's not dissimilar to what some conservatives have charged Rhode Island Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee with doing over the years. It's one thing to be a conservative Democrat; it's another thing to enhance that image by trashing parts of the party to which you purport to belong.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the tactical blunders by Lieberman and/or his campaign operatives. The key one to me is his decision to try to get on the November ballot as a petitioning third party candidate if he loses the Democratic nomination in the August primary vote. Chuck Todd writes about it in the same column:

Frankly, Lieberman's decision to prepare a backup plan may undermine his own cause in the primary. Think about Lamont's main grievance against Lieberman: that the incumbent is not a real Democrat. By prepping an indepedent run, Lieberman is proving Lamont's charge true. What message is Lieberman sending other than "When the going gets tough, the tough get going right out of the Democratic Party"? Remember Gore's critique of Bill Bradley in the 2000 Democratic primary that the former New Jersey senator didn't "stay and fight"? The same charge certainly applies here.

Lieberman appears to be making strategic decisions out of anger. He's clearly irked that he's become the liberal wing's whipping boy. Considering some of the venom that's being spewed at him, he can get sympathy on a personal level. But Lieberman has prided himself on not being an angry pol, and that he is somehow different from "regular" politicians.

Well, sour-grape independent candidacies are run by angry pols. And frankly, if you are a Lieberman supporter, don't get too confident that your man can win a three-way race as an independent.

In closing, I'll say again that there's no one single issue that's driving the liberal bloggers and the Lamont campaign. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for a political novice like Ned Lamont to challenge or defeat a veteran three term incumbent like Joe Lieberman only on the basis of one issue. Lieberman has burned his bridges with the Democratic base on a lot of issues over the years, and as I said a few days ago, now everyone who's ever had an axe to grind with him is coming out of the woodwork.

Update: Atrios wrote an op-ed on this for the LA Times.

Oops, Is This Thing On?

Screenshot from CNN, image from ThinkProgress.

President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair had a rather interesting and candid exchange over how to resolve the current escalation of violence in the Middle East. Unfortunately for them, it appears that they didn't know they were on camera or that the microphone nearby was on and was picking up every word.

Take a look.

Sky News has a full transcript of the conversation.

Name Change

DeBloga is dead. Sorry Adam.

The new name for this blog will be Future Unwritten. I got the name from the liner notes of The Clash's 1982 album "Combat Rock." The graphic in this posting is the only image I could find of it on the web through Google image search, and unfortunately it's small and you can't really make out the writing if you don't know what it is. On the left side of the page in the book is the phrase "The Future Is Unwritten." Underneath it is a banner furling over the bottom two corners of the star which reads "Know Your Rights," which is the name of the first song on the album.

The name has absolutely nothing to do with that damn song that keeps getting played to death on pop/adult top 40 radio.

In the interest of full disclosure: I'm a huge Clash fan. "London Calling" is one of my favorite albums of all time. If you look back at this post, I took the title from the Clash song of the same name on the "Combat Rock" album. While I'm at it, I might as well plug "Westway to the World," an excellent documentary about the Clash that came out a few years ago.

What does it mean to me and why name the blog after it? To sum it up in a word, it means possibilities. That word also happens to adequately and concisely summarize the next two years of my life as a grad student at USC.

As a journalist, it also means to me that my and our collective responsibility as a profession is never done, that we have to continuously documenting what is happening in the world.

As a history major in my undergraduate years, it also means that you have to continuously look at and reevaluate the past to better understand your present and future, either to uncover things which were missed previously or to provide a greater understanding of the present situation by understanding the context and cause and effect of how you got to where you are at this present moment.

All of those things to me are what journalism and blogging should be about, and are embodied by that simple but memorable phrase from a 24-year old album by one of the greatest and most influential punk rock bands of all time.

So update your bookmarks, the new place to go is http://future-unwritten.blogspot.com

Novak vs. Harlow

Following up on my Wilson/Plame lawsuit posting from a few days ago, in which I said I would go into further detail on the discrepancies between Bob Novak and ex-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow's recollections of their conversations about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame prior to the publication of Novak's now infamous July 14, 2003 column which outed her.

The whole dispute began in earnest last summer when the Washington Post ran a front page story in which they interviewed Harlow.

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

After months of publicly refusing to answer questions about the leak case and his role in it, Novak felt obliged to respond to Harlow's claims four days after the Washington Post ran its story.

Harlow said to the Post that he did not tell me Mrs. Wilson "was undercover because that was classified." What he did say was, as I reported in a previous column, "she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties.'" According to CIA sources, she was brought home from foreign assignments in 1997, when Agency officials feared she had been "outed" by the traitor Aldrich Ames.

I have previously said that I never would have written those sentences if Bill Harlow, then CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the Agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger herself or anybody.

A few days later, he was on CNN's "Inside Politics" where anchor Ed Henry was about to question him about the Plame leak, and a seemingly harmless exchange with James Carville over Katherine Harris in the Florida Senate race led to this classic television moment.

NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen offered what I think is the best analysis of the whole incident. You can read his take on it here.

Fast forward nearly a year later, Novak writes another column, outlining his role in the investigation and again taking issue with Harlow, whom he identifies as one of his three sources for the story.

In the second to last paragraph, Novak writes

Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."

However, even before the Novak-Harlow pissing match which began last year, there are more questions about what Novak knew, when he knew it, and who told him.

In 2004, Joe Wilson's book "The Politics of Truth" was published. The book was mostly a memoir of his life in government service, but the parts everyone was interested in reading about of course was about the Plame leak.

I would recommend reading all of Chapter 17 ("A Strange Encounter with Robert Novak") but for those who don't have the book, the short version is that on July 8, 2003, six days before Novak’s column is published, an unidentified friend of Wilson’s tells him that he had run into Novak walking down Pennsylvania Avenue. He struck up a conversation with Novak on the uranium controversy and asked for his opinion of Wilson, and Novak (not knowing that this man was a friend of Wilson’s) responded, “Wilson’s an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She’s a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him.” Novak and Wilson’s friend went their separate ways, and Wilson’s friend went straight to Wilson’s office to tell him the story.

Wilson writes that he called then-CNN executive Eason Jordan and relayed the story to him, and asked him to speak to Novak on his behalf. Jordan eventually arranged for a phone call between Novak and Wilson. The phone call eventually happened two days later, on July 10. This is how Wilson describes it in page 344 of his book:

He listened quietly as I repeated to him my friend's account of their conversation. I told him I couldn't imagine what had possessed him to blurt out to a complete stranger what he had thought he knew about my wife.

Novak apologized, and then asked if I would confirm what he had heard from a CIA source: that my wife worked at the Agency. I told him that I didn't answer questions about my wife. I told him that my story was not about my wife or even about me; it was about sixteen words in the State of the Union address.

On page 345, he describes his reaction to the July 14 Novak column:

Amid the welter of emotions I felt that morning, I tried to understand a particular element of Novak’s story.
He cited not a CIA source, as he had indicated on the phone four days earlier, but rather two senior administration sources; I called him for a clarification. He asked if I was very displeased with the article, and I replied that I did not see what the mention of my wife had added to it but that the reason for my call was to question his sources. When we first spoke, he had cited to me a CIA source, yet his published story cited two senior administration sources. He replied: "I misspoke the first time we talked."

Wilson elaborates on some of the steps he and his wife took to try to protect her name from coming out once they knew Novak had the information:

A couple of days before Novak's article was published, but after my friend's strange encounter with him, I had received a call from [Washington] Post reporter Walter Pincus, who alerted me that "they are coming after you." Since I already knew what Novak had learned about Valerie, I was increasingly concerned over what else might be put out abotu her. I assumed, though, that the CIA would itself quash any article that made reference to Valerie... Novak had still been trolling for sources when we spoke on the telephone, so I assumed that he did not have the confirmations he would need from the CIA to publish the story. I told Valerie, who alerted the press liaison at the CIA, and we were left with the reasonable expectation that any reference to her would be dropped, since he would have no way of confirming the information - unless, of course, he got confirmations from another part of the government, such as the White House.

Novak has now admitted to having three sources, including Harlow at CIA. He spoke to Wilson's friend on July 8, the same day he spoke to Karl Rove as his confirming second source, according to a story in the New York Times last summer. He may very well have misspoken when he first talked to Wilson on July 10, attributing his info about Plame to a CIA source. However, given that his CIA source for this story was Bill Harlow, and Harlow is saying something different, I'm wondering if it's possible to reconcile these two versions or not. Or Harlow may have inadvertently confirmed the Plame info before he knew it would be a hot potato or that it was classified information. What we still don't know yet is when Novak spoke to Harlow - was it before his July 8 conversations with Rove and Wilson's friend, after July 8 but before his July 10 conversation with Wilson, or after July 10 and before July 14 when his column was published?

Curiously enough, even though it has nothing to do with this subject, on July 8, Scooter Libby was meeting with New York Times reporter Judy Miller at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington DC, during which Valerie Plame was discussed. This was first reported by investigative journalist Murray Waas in the American Prospect in August of 2005, before it was subsequently confirmed by the Washington Post in September of 2005, and ultimately confirmed by Judy Miller herself in the pages of the New York Times.

Back to Novak and Harlow, Murray Waas reported for the American Prospect in February 2004:

Two government officials have told the FBI that conservative columnist Robert Novak was asked specifically not to publish the name of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in his now-famous July 14 newspaper column. The two officials told investigators they warned Novak that by naming Plame he might potentially jeopardize her ability to engage in covert work, stymie ongoing intelligence operations, and jeopardize sensitive overseas sources.
...
The two administration officials questioned by the FBI characterized Novak's statements as untrue and misleading, according to a government official and an attorney official familiar with the FBI interviews.
...
The two officials say Novak was told, as one source put it, that Plame's work for the CIA "went much further than her being an analyst," and that publishing her name would be "hurtful" and could stymie ongoing intelligence operations and jeopardize her overseas sources.

"When [Novak] says that he was not told that he was 'endangering' someone, that statement might be technically true," this source says. "Nobody directly told him that she was going to be physically hurt. But that was implicit in that he was told what she did for a living."

"At best, he is parsing words," said the other official. "At worst, he is lying to his readers and the public. Journalists should not lie, I would think." These new accounts, provided by two sources familiar to the investigation, contradict Novak's attempts to downplay his own knowledge about the potential harm to Plame.

Moreover, one of the government officials who has told federal investigators that Novak's account is false has also turned over to investigators contemporaneous notes he made of at least one conversation with Novak. Those notes, according to sources, appear to corroborate the official's version of events.

If this account is correct, I would guess that one of the officials in Waas' article is Harlow. If Novak did lie to investigators, that would be stupid and reckless on his part. On the other hand, if the FBI or Patrick Fitzgerald had the evidence to prove it, I'm sure they would have gone for an indictment against Novak.

Novak and Harlow's versions of the story are complete opposites. Unless we find out more details in a Fitzgerald document filing or during a court hearing, or the Wilson lawsuit is allowed to proceed and Wilson's legal team puts Novak and Harlow on the witness stand and start questioning them under oath, we may never know whose version is accurate.

The questions that Novak and Harlow need to answer to settle this:

1) When did Novak find out about Plame's CIA employment?
2) When did he contact Harlow or the CIA Public Affairs Office for confirmation? How does the timing of that conversation match up with other events happening during that time period?
3) How strongly was he warned or discouraged (if at all) about using Plame's name by Harlow or others?
4) Did Novak ignore the warnings and do it anyway?
5) Did Novak subsequently lie about it in public comments? Or is Harlow lying about trying to warn off Novak because he didn't want to admit as a confirming source he had passed on classified information?

Dead People as Political Props

Photo from the Missouri Civil War Museum.

This topic is brought up because of the recent Republican uproar over an ad by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee which used an image of a flag draped caskets of soldiers killed in Iraq. You can view the ad here.

I personally don't believe in using any images of dead in ads for any political purpose because they have no way of speaking out for themselves. If I were a media consultant for a candidate or campaign, I wouldn't touch the dead or their relatives in any of my ads with a proverbial twenty foot pole. In my view it cheapens the discourse by trying to shamelessly and overtly exploit someone else's tragedy to score political points.

Unfortunately, the DCCC ad is hardly the first, and only use of dead people for a political statement, by the Republicans or the Democrats in this election cycle or previous ones.

Republican Senator Mike DeWine's re-eelection campaign recently made an ad attacking his opponent Sherrod Brown's national security credentials. The ad uses an image of a burning World Trade Center on 9/11. Unfortunately, I've been unable to find the ad online, so I can only link to this article from the Columbus Dispatch.

In 2004, President Bush's first re-election ad briefly showed images of the World Trade Center rubble a flag-covered body being moved from Ground Zero.

Fast forward a few months later, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry obtained the endorsement of "the Jersey Girls," four 9/11 widows who lobbied for the creation of the 9/11 Commission and reforms of the intelligence and homeland security community, and immediately put one of them in an ad and had them hit the campaign trail for him. I can't find the ad online, so you'll have to settle with the written account from Fox News that I linked to.

At the same time, Progress for America, a conservative 527 group, did this emotionally wrenching ad of President Bush's meeting with a little girl from Ohio whose mother was killed in the World Trade Center. According to Fox News, this was the biggest single political ad buy in history, worth $17 million.

But you have to go waaaaay back to the 1944 presidential election campaign, in the middle of World War II, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had "I Remember Pearl Harbor" buttons made for his re-election campaign for a fourth term. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any images of the buttons themselves online, only written references to them. If I do find it later, I will update this posting to include a link or image.

Neither party can or should claim a higher sense of morality or outrage for using images of dead people or their families for political purposes. As far as I can tell they are both equally shameless and opportunistic on this subject.

Selective Editing

The guys who put together the hilarious Brokeback to the Future parody trailer have decided to take a stab at the new X-Men movie.

Take a look.

With Friends Like These...

Photo from NBC 30 in Connecticut.

This is the first of what will probably be several writings on the Democratic primary contest happening right now in Connecticut over the course of the next few weeks, or months if Joe Lieberman loses the primary and runs in November as an independent candidate.

This in today's LA Times:

I feel I have a special obligation to respond to your July 6 editorial, "Lieberman's run." I am a liberal activist. I was also Lieberman's roommate at Yale.

Lieberman is a good and decent man personally, but he has also become a cheerleader for George Bush's bloody, arrogant and disastrous war on Iraq.

As a friend, I wish for him the best. As a Democratic voter, if I lived in Connecticut, I would be voting for Ned Lamont.

DAVID WYLES

Playa del Rey

While the Iraq war is going to be the big issue in every midterm election race this November, I don't think it's the only factor in the challenge to Lieberman, although it certainly hasn't helped him. Lieberman has annoyed a lot of liberal activists over the years, for his real and perceived closeness to Republicans in the Senate and the White House.

Unfortunately for Lieberman, he represents a liberal New England state where the support of President Bush and the Iraq war is not as unwavering as his, and it is precisely those liberal activists who he has annoyed that go out and vote in primary elections, particularly during off-year congressional elections which are traditionally lower in turnout than presidential election years.. From what I've been reading in the Connecticut media and the blogs, it seems to me that everyone who has ever had an axe to grind with Lieberman in the state of Connecticut is now coming out of the woodwork and piling on.

While the "Lieberman's Former Roommate" endorsement is not going to throw the primary or general election in Ned Lamont's favor, his campaign will probably get a chuckle out of it.

Update: Former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark was asked about the Connecticut Senate race at Daily Kos and took a swipe at Lieberman. Here's his response:

I am a proud member of the Democratic Party, and I believe it is our party's responsibility to support the will of the Democratic primary voters in Connecticut. I personally look forward to supporting the candidate CT voters elect as the Democratic nominee. Though, as an aside, I must say I find it ironic that Senator Lieberman is now planning a potential run as an independent after he continually questioned my loyalty to the Democratic Party during the 2004 presidential primary.

Straight to Hell

Photo from the Sydney Morning Herald.

So the situation in the Middle East is escalating, and the whole region could be at war with itself if local and international leaders don't play their cards right to defuse this highly volatile situation.

I'll write more about this later, but in the meantime, (even though I don't necessarily agree with everything he writes) check out these comments by Steve Gilliard:

Ehud Olmert, like many new leaders, seek to establish his bona fides by using force. The problem is that the use of force has been disproportionate to the issue at hand. Attacking Beirut Airport? Ginning up some claim Iran ordered this?

The Israelis could be setting the stage for the collapse of the Iraqi government with this, and that means Americans die. This is reckless beyond words. Olmert is playing tough guy politics, but this time, he's got a two front war going and the possiblility of the American Army paying the price.

Israel has gotten widespread support in the US because the cost has been minimal. If the Iraqis decide to up the stakes by going after the US, what does Olmert do then? If Israeli subs take out Iran's reactor, are they going to accept another oil boycott?

Israel has a right to defend itself. But this is reckless behavior with the US on the hook. The Israeli government has been allowed to treat Bush and Rice like equals, and they are not. We pay for their economy and Army, like we do Egypt. Their actions can directly hurt Americans in Iraq if they don't ratchet down their actions. A blockade? Bombing the airport? It wasn't the Lebanese Army attacking Northern Israel.

There is more than a little contempt for Arabs among Israelis and that was transmitted to the US to our detriment. Make no mistake, the Iraqis hate Israel. Israel attacks Syria or Iran and US troops could pay the price.

I know Olmert is trying to show he can't be bullied, but he's way out of control here and Bush is sitting on his hands.

The Israelis need to realize that if US troops catch it in the neck because of their actions, the American public will be quite unsympathetic

One of the things that also changed after 9/11 is that Arabs can't be bullied as they were in the past. Iraq shows that you can fight the west.

This needs to scale down into talks and quickly. Israel could be buying more trouble than they think they are and may well drag the US into it.

This Could Get Messy...

Photo from Newsweek.

Former CIA officer sues Cheney, Libby, Rove over leak

Former CIA officer sues Cheney, Libby, Rove over leak
Plame alleges Bush administration officials ruined her career

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviser Karl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, accused Cheney, Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of revealing Plame's CIA identity in seeking revenge against Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration's motives in Iraq.

...

The lawsuit accuses Cheney, Libby, Rove and 10 unnamed administration officials or political operatives of putting the Wilsons and their children's lives at risk by exposing Plame.

I'm not sure how the legal argument of their civil suit will hold up once it gets to court, but the prospect of seeing the Vice President, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and ten other unnamed defendants has liberals cackling with glee.

You can view a PDF copy of the 23-page complaint.

Some highlights:

1) Plame's Employment Status

Page 3 of the complaint states

"On January 1, 2002 Mrs. Wilson was working for the CIA as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations. Her employment status was classified and not publicly known until July 14, 2003, when a press report precipitated by leaks from senior government officials at the White House revealed her status and exposed her."

For those not familiar with CIA bureaucracy, the Directorate of Operations (DO) is the component which handles its agents in the field - spies, operatives, etc. While the DO is not only limited to spooks out in the field but also to its officers who work at CIA headquarters at Langley, it does provide some definitive evidence of what area of the CIA she was working in recent years before the Novak column.

I'm not sure how this will match up with what Republican critics of the Wilsons have been saying since the beginning of the whole sordid affair. In September 2003, Clifford May described his reaction to the Plame revelation in Novak's column:

That wasn't news to me. I had been told that — but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.

During a pre-trial motion hearing before Judge Reggie Walton earlier this year, Scooter Libby's attorney said that he intended to introduce five witnesses who would testify under oath during Scooter Libby's trial that Wilson had discussed Plame's CIA affiliation with them.


2) Ten John Does

Page 4 of the complaint states

"Defendants John Does No. 1-10 are persons whose identities currently are unknown but who are believed to be persons who were either employed by the United States Government in senior positions at all times relevant to this Complaint or who were political operatives with close ties to such persons."

The big guessing game in Washington from now until if this case ever goes to trial will be trying to figure out the identities of the ten John Does named in the suit. I have my suspicions but will not speculate.

Besides Cheney, Rove, and Libby, the potential witness list is mindboggling from a political perspective, especially if the case goes to court before the November midterm elections. The Washington Post has a good write-up of the suit with some legal and historical analysis on how and why the Wilsons might and might not be able to get Cheney to take the stand. The article doesn't say, but I get the impression the same protections would not apply to Rove, Libby, or any of the ten John Does.

I think it will be a virtual certainty that Bob Novak will be called to the stand, especially now that he feels he can discuss the case publicly since his role in Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is over. If this happens, you can count on the Wilsons' legal team to ask him under oath how he first found out about Plame's CIA employment. If Novak doesn't try going the Judy Miller route, we may finally find out the identity of his original source, now that he's admitted that Karl Rove and former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow were the other two.

I would also expect Harlow to be called in as well, to try to determine how he did or did not try to protect Plame's CIA ties from Novak. I will write up a separate post on the Novak vs. Harlow discrepancies later.


The Bottom Line: the decision by the Wilsons to file a civil suit over the leak had been long rumored and does not come as a surprise. However, this choice of action will open up another avenue to get to the bottom of how this whole affair began and played out on both sides, and will likely cause the White House more political headaches in the weeks and months to come.

The real winners? The lawyers in the case. If a judge allows the lawsuit to proceed, they have a whole other case to worry about and in the case of lawyers representing players who were already involved in Fitzgerald's investigation (i.e. Karl Rove and Scooter Libby) will likely make a killing on a second round of legal fees.

Wish You Were Here

"Come on you raver, you seer of visions, come on you painter, you piper, you prisoner, and shine!"

Several news organizations are reporting that Pink Floyd co-founder Syd Barrett has died.

Barrett was the band's leader and creative force during its early years before he eventually left the band and was replaced by David Gilmour, and Pink Floyd went on to become one of the best selling and most influential bands of all time. More info on Pink Floyd here and Syd Barrett here.

He was also a central theme of the band's 1975 album Wish You Were Here (hence the title of this entry and the use of the album cover). "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" is about him, and during Pink Floyd's performance at Live 8 last summer, Roger Waters told the audience,"It's quite emotional standing up here with these guys... We're doing this for everyone who's not here. And particularly, of course, for Syd," before performing "Wish You Were Here."

Rolling Stone has reached into its archives and dug up this 1971 interview with Syd Barrett which you should read. According to the MTV News writeup, he hasn't given an interview since 1971, so this could be the one.

Finally, this bit of information coming in from the Department of Bad Karma: Rolling Stone is reporting that although Barrett died on July 7, it was not announced until today (July 11). Today is also the day that the DVD version of Pink Floyd's 1995 live album Pulse is released.

LA Culture

Photo from that other school in Los Angeles.

So with LA being the entertainment mecca of the world and all, I decided to take in some of the local scene the past few days. Last week, I saw two movies - Lost City, about a rich Cuban family in Havana during the times before, during, and after the revolution; and Charade, an old movie starring Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant. Charade was playing at an art museum, which screens old/classic movies from time to time. I was checking their calendar and they recently did a screening of Gone with the Wind. I thought Lost City was quite good, especially the soundtrack which is a wide range of Cuban music. Speaking of Cuban music, if you haven't heard it, pick up the soundtrack to Buena Vista Social Club.

While we're on the subject of music, Pearl Jam played two consecutive nights at the Great Western Forum, formerly the home of the Los Angeles Lakers. I went to both shows, and they were excellent. The first night was an epic 30-song, two and a half hour set. An interesting note - on both nights, Tim Robbins joined them onstage as a guest vocalist during two covers: Phil Ochs' "Here's to the State of Mississippi" (which Eddie Vedder recently performed during a taping of VH1's "Storytellers") on Sunday and X's "I Must Not Think Bad Thoughts" on Monday.

The venue itself was surprisingly small, I thought. It seemed to me more like the biggest high school gym in the world than the home court for one of the most famous franchises in professional sports. I haven't had time to hit any of the clubs on Sunset Strip during this trip, but there will be plenty of time for that after I move here.

Hitting Below the Belt?

Last week's "Meet the Press" featured a roundtable discussion with panelists Dana Priest, Bill Bennett, John Harwood, and William Safire.

You'll recall that Dana Priest won a Pulitzer Prize for her story in the Washington Post on how the CIA was holding Al Qaeda detainees in secret prisons in Eastern Europe. Bill Bennett is the former Secretary of Education and currently a conservative radio talk show host and CNN commentator who has been very critical of reporters who publish classified information.

From the transcript:

MS. MITCHELL: Dana, let me point out that The Washington Post, your newspaper, was behind the others but also did publish this story. And a story you wrote last year disclosing the secret CIA prisons won the Pulitzer Prize, but it also led to William Bennett, sitting here, saying that three reporters who won the Pulitzer Prize—you for that story and Jim Risen and others for another story—were, “not worthy of an award but rather worthy of jail.” Dana, how do you plead?

MS. PRIEST: Well, it’s not a crime to publish classified information. And this is one of the things Mr. Bennett keeps telling people that it is. But, in fact, there are some narrow categories of information you can’t publish, certain signals, communications, intelligence, the names of covert operatives and nuclear secrets.

Now why isn’t it a crime? I mean, some people would like to make casino gambling a crime, but it is not a crime. Why isn’t it not a crime? Because the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect the press so that they could perform a basic role in government oversight, and you can’t do that. Look at the criticism that the press got after Iraq that we did not do our job on WMD. And that was all in a classified arena. To do a better job—and I believe that we should’ve done a better job—we would’ve again, found ourselves in the arena of...

Isn't it interesting that Dana Priest managed to work in a reference to gambling when addressing Bennett, her detractor, while he's sitting right next to her?

Crooks and Liars and You Tube have the clip online. Watch Bennett squirm.

I'll have more in the days ahead about the controversy over news organizations publishing classified information and the recent political uproar surrounding it.

Update: I would like to add that while I don't agree with Bennett's criticism of reporters who obtain or publish classified information, I do think that Priest may have stepped over the line as far as taking a personal swipe at him. I would view gambling as a personal problem, which although it is in direct conflict with the reputation that Bennett has made for himself and the beliefs he has promoted over the years, would it be any different for going after someone's personal problems like alcoholism or drug addiction or anything else? I certainly don't think Bill Bennett's gambling problem was relevant in addressing the point that Andrea Mitchell presented to Dana Priest during the discussion.

Forza Italia!

Mardi Gras and spring break are for amateurs...
Photo from La Gazzetta dello Sport.

Congratulations to the Italians for a masterful performance in the semifinals against Germany. Speaking from extensive personal experience, the Italians know how to celebrate a soccer victory like no one else.

One thing worth remembering is that in the first two minutes of the first overtime period, the Italians fired off two very close shots, one that went off the goalpost, the other off the top bar. If those two shots had gone in, in addition to the collapse by the German defense in the final two minutes of the second overtime period before the penalty kick shootout, it could potentially have been a 4-0 debacle for the Germans.

One final interesting historical observation, assuming the final two games this weekend go appropriately. During the 1990 World Cup, which was hosted in Italy, Germany won the tournament and Italy came in third place. This year, you could potentially have a reversal of what happened in 1990: the tournament hosted in Germany, with Italy winning the tournament and Germany finishing in third place.

Out in LA for the World Cup and Fourth of July

You'd never see anybody doing this in DC...
Photo from the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors

I've been in LA for just over 12 hours now. I'm not going to get a whole lot done today as far as apartment hunting since it's the Fourth of July.

First on the agenda today is the Germany vs. Italy World Cup semifinal. Go azzurri! Will be hitting a bar to watch the game.

In the late afternoon I will be barbecuing. No plans for this yet, but I'm hoping to go to a decent spot on the beach or up in the hills to catch the fireworks later in the evening.

The back page of the C section of today's New York Times contains a scan of the Declaration of Independence, which is still an amazing document to read so many generations later. There's a lot of history, good and bad, to cover in the 230 years since the Founding Fathers told the Brits to get lost. To put it in perspective, take a look at this timeline from the National Museum of American History. For those of you in need of a refresher who may want to discuss the meaning of the day in between hamburgers and beers, here's a crash course that might come in handy.

My personal favorite Fourth of July was in 2000, when I was visiting Edinburgh, Scotland and went out with a few other Americans at the hostel where I was staying to have drinks on the Royal Mile to celebrate and watch the fireworks over Princes Street Gardens.

Happy Fouth of July.

Under New Management...

"I'm leaving, on a jet plane..."
Photo from Boeing Blog

"Welcome my son, welcome to the blogosphere..."
(My apologies to Pink Floyd)

I'm off to LA tomorrow, hopefully will find some time to do some blogging from out there over the next week or so when I'm not looking for an apartment or getting to know the town.

I've changed a few things since yesterday, and you can expect more in the days and weeks ahead once I've really thought this through and have a good idea of what I want for the look and feel of this blog.

In the meantime, I've added a few things off to the side to keep you the readers busy for a while, and changed the look of the site a bit from the original template that was set up by Adam, who also authored the piece of prose that precedes this posting, effectively launching this site before I even knew it existed. I've also changed the password, so Adam - no more impersonating me online! (Not that you would ever do such a thing, but as Ronald Reagan famously said, "Trust but verify." I've seen enough "Security Watch" and identity theft stories by now to know what can happen when somebody successfully pretends to be you.)

Stay tuned...

PS - Is it wrong for me to quote a John Denver lyric less than 24 hours before I'm about to get on a plane? Or at least bad karma?