Radioactive

I was working on a long story on the political fallout of the Foley scandal, and it turns out the Washington Post beat me to it in a front page Sunday story written better than anything I had, so I'll link to their story here.

In less than 24 hours, the Foley resignation has become a full-fledged political scandal on Capitol Hill.

The extent of the problem was first reported by ABC News:

One former page tells ABC News that his class was warned about Foley by people involved in the program.

Other pages told ABC News they were hesitant to report Foley because of his power in Congress.

In essence, the problem was so blatant that pages were being warned about Foley by "people involved in the program." This means that within the program, it was an unspoken but open secret by people who were in the position to know.

With Foley now out of the picture, news organizations are trying to figure out how long his behavior went on, who it involved, and most significantly, which of his House Republican colleagues knew, or should have known or investigated, the allegations of impropriety.

It is in the last of those three issues where heads much bigger than Foley's could roll as a result of this scandal.

Because of their knowledge at different points of the allegations against Foley, the big targets of scrutiny in all of this will be:
1) Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
2) Rep. John Shimkus, chairman of the House Page Board
3) Rep. Tom Reynolds, head of the National Republican Congressional Committee
4) Rep. Rodney Alexander, the congressman who hired the boy that Foley was communicating with.

The question has now extended beyond Foley's actions, and can be summed up with a paraphrase of Senator Howard Baker's famous question during the Senate Watergate hearings: What did the House GOP leadership know and when did they know it?

It is very rare to see any Republican violate Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment, but in this case nobody could blame them because no one wants to get pegged as covering up for an Internet sex predator. In the end, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was left holding the Foley hot potato by members of his own caucus.

While Majority Leader John Boehner introduced a resolution to have the House Ethics Committee investigate the Foley matter, and it passed unanimously, other Republicans are being more aggressive.

According to an article in today's New York Times, Rep. Peter King (R-New York) called for a "full investigation." Rep. Chris Shays (R-Connecticut) raised the rhetoric, telling the Times, "If they (members of the House GOP leadership) knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in leadership." Shays, in the middle of a tough re-election race in his home district, given the facts we know now is implicitly calling for Hastert to go.

Looking at Hastert's situation, I'd say it's unclear how this will affect his re-election prospects. I've been unable to find any polls for Hastert's re-election bid this year, as well as the exit poll results from 2004. I think that his leadership position in the House GOP caucus might be in jeopardy, especially if the GOP loses the majority in the House of Representatives and his handling of the Foley issue winds up being a factor in any GOP losses.

Beyond Hastert, I'd say the other member of Congress who might be in trouble for this is Rep. John Shimkus (R-Illinois), who was filled in on the allegations but did not notify Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Michigan), the only Democrat on the House page board. Given the way it was handled, exclusively within the House GOP caucus with no action taken against Foley, it gives the public and political perception (whether genuine or not) that House Republicans were covering up for Foley for political reasons even though they knew about the allegations for almost a year.

The story could not have come at a worst time for House Republicans - it absolutely dominated the headlines on the last day that Congress was in session, and there is almost a full 5 weeks for any possible scandal to grow legs and bring other people down before Election Day.

From the Archives

One of Josh Marshall's readers dug up this quote from the St. Petersburg Times:

"It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."
--Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), commenting on President Clinton, following release of the Starr Report, September 12, 1998.

On another note - I picked up a copy of Bob Woodward's new book and am going through it as fast as I can, given that it's 491 pages long. I'm about 100 pages into it, and I'll say this much: it will not be on any GOP recommended reading lists during the next 5 weeks before Election Day.

I'll have more on Foley and Woodward soon.

Fallout

I'm working on an in-depth comment and analysis of the political fallout of the Mark Foley resignation, which I'm hoping to have up sometime tomorrow.

In the meantime, check out this joint performance by U2 and Green Day last weekend for the opening ceremony of the first New Orleans Saints home game at the Superdome since Hurricane Katrina last year.

Radioactive

In less than 24 hours, the Foley resignation has become a full-fledged political scandal on Capitol Hill.

With Foley now out of the picture, news organizations are trying to figure out how long his behavior went on, who it involved, and most significantly, which of his House Republican colleagues knew, or should have known or investigated, the allegations of impropriety.

It is in the last of those three issues where heads much bigger than Foley's could roll as a result of this scandal.

Because of their knowledge at different points of the allegations against Foley, the big targets of scrutiny in all of this will be:
1) Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
2) Rep. John Shinkus, chairman of the House Page Board
3) Rep. Tom Reynolds, head of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC)
4) Rep. Rodney Alexander, the congressman who hired the boy that Foley was communicating with.

House Majority Leader John Boehner pointed the finger directly at Dennis Hastert. From the Washington Post:

The resignation rocked the Capitol, and especially Foley's GOP colleagues, as lawmakers were rushing to adjourn for at least six weeks. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him "we're taking care of it."

It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took. His spokesman had said earlier that the speaker did not know of the sexually charged e-mails between Foley and the boy.

Drip, Drip, Drip...

One of Salon.com's two anonymous sources in its original story on George Allen using racist slurs has decided to go on the record. Even more problematic for Senator Allen, the source remembers hearing about the deer head in a mailbox incident during the hunting trip.

A former football teammate of Sen. George Allen decided Friday to go on the record with recollections of the Virginia Republican's alleged racist behavior during college.

Edward J. Sabornie, a special education professor at North Carolina State University, had previously spoken to Salon about Allen's behavior on the condition of anonymity, because he feared retribution from the Allen campaign. In a Salon story on Sunday, Sabornie was quoted as a "teammate" who remembered Allen using the word "nigger" to describe blacks. "It was so common with George when he was among his white friends. This is the terminology he used," Sabornie said in that article.

Sabornie said he has now decided to let his name be known because he was upset by how Allen responded this week to the Salon story. "What George said on Monday really kind of inflamed me -- that it was 'ludicrously false' that he ever used the N-word," Sabornie told Salon. "I don't know how George can look himself in the mirror after saying that."

Since Sunday, four other named acquaintances of Allen have told news organizations that they witnessed Allen using a racial epithet or demonstrating racist behavior. Allen, and his campaign staff, have denied each of the claims.

Sabornie, a registered independent who considers himself a liberal Democrat, was first contacted by Salon on Sept. 17. In the past, Sabornie said he has shown support for Allen, even writing him a congratulatory letter in 2000 after Allen was elected to the Senate.

But Sabornie said his opinion of Allen dimmed after the senator called an Indian-American student "macaca" at a recent campaign rally. "That was the catalyst," Sabornie said. "I saw the old George."
...
Sabornie was in Allen's class and played football with the senator at the University of Virginia between 1971 and 1973. "We were friends," said Sabornie, who played outside linebacker and tight end on the team. He said he remembers Allen also referring to blacks as "roaches," and using the word "wetback" to refer to Latinos.

Sabornie said he also recalled hearing in college about a hunting trip with Allen that was rumored to have ended with a deer head being placed in a mailbox, a claim that was first made public by teammate Ken Shelton, and confirmed in part by teammate George Beam. Until Tuesday, after the Salon article came out, Sabornie said he had not spoken to Shelton for about 30 years.

"Because I was a hunter, and my teammates knew I hunted, I heard the story," said Sabornie, who could not recall who told him. "I just remember that they cut off the doe head and stuffed it in a mailbox. I don't remember anyone saying that George went looking specifically for black families."

Off With Their Heads!

From ABC's The Blotter:

Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) planned to resign today, hours after ABC questioned him about sexually explicit internet messages with current and former Congressional pages under the age of 18.

A spokesman for Foley, the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, said the congressman submitted his resignation in a letter late this afternoon to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

Hours earlier, ABC News had read excerpts of instant messages provided by former male pages who said the congressman, under the AOL Instant Messenger screen name Maf54, made repeated references to sexual organs and acts.

Looks like former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards' famous quote about "The only way I can lose is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy," was correct in Foley's case, even if he wasn't actually caught with the live boy.

Update: Foley has submitted his letter of resignation to the Speaker of the House.

The New Republic thinks they've found Mark Foley's page on MySpace.

The Blotter has also posted some sexually explicit AOL Instant Messagenger chat transcripts from Foley and from their account, it was these transcripts that were the smoking gun that triggered Foley's resignation. According to ABC, Foley could potentially be prosecuted and imprisoned for some laws that he helped pass as a member of Congress, and as chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children.

Persona Non Grata

Bob Woodward can probably forget about waiting for the invitation to the White House Christmas party to arrive in the mail this year.

From the New York Daily News:

The CIA'S top counterterrorism officials felt they could have killed Osama Bin Laden in the months before 9/11, but got the "brushoff" when they went to the Bush White House seeking the money and authorization.

CIA Director George Tenet and his counterterrorism head Cofer Black sought an urgent meeting with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, writes Bob Woodward in his new book "State of Denial."

They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and "sounded the loudest warning" to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden.

Woodward writes that Rice was polite, but, "They felt the brushoff."

Tenet and Black were both frustrated.

Black later calculated that all he needed was $500 million of covert action funds and reasonable authorization from President Bush to go kill Bin Laden and "he might be able to bring Bin Laden's head back in a box," Woodward writes.

Black claims the CIA had about "100 sources and subsources" in Afghanistan who could have helped carry out the hit.

The details of the incident are emerging just days after Sen. Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton sparred with Rice over whether the Bush administration had tried to get Bin Laden before the terror attacks.

Update: Woodward also reports that President Bush was urged to dump Donald Rumsfeld twice after he won re-election, first by his then-Chief of Staff Andrew Card, the second time by Card and (interestingly enough) the First Lady. Looks like Andrew "Marketing Point of View" Card is trying to do some retroactive CYA after being replaced earlier this year.

From today's Washington Post:

Former White House chief of staff Andrew Card on two occasions tried and failed to persuade President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to a new book by Bob Woodward that depicts senior officials of the Bush administration as unable to face the consequences of their policy in Iraq.

Card made his first attempt after Bush was reelected in November, 2004, arguing that the administration needed a fresh start and recommending that Bush replace Rumsfeld with former secretary of state James A. Baker III. Woodward writes that Bush considered the move, but was persuaded by Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, that it would be seen as an expression of doubt about the course of the war and would expose Bush himself to criticism.

Card tried again around Thanksgiving, 2005, this time with the support of First Lady Laura Bush, who according to Woodward, felt that Rumsfeld's overbearing manner was damaging to her husband. Bush refused for a second time, and Card left the administration last March, convinced that Iraq would be compared to Vietnam and that history would record that no senior administration officials had raised their voices in opposition to the conduct of the war.

More Skeletons in Robert Menendez's Closet

This from the Newark Star-Ledger:

U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez's closest political adviser was secretly recorded seven years ago boasting of political power and urging a Hudson County contractor to hire someone as a favor to Menendez, according to a transcript obtained by The Star-Ledger.

Menendez's campaign said last night he had severed his ties with the adviser, Donald Scarinci, after learning of the taped conversation. The two men were childhood friends and Scarinci, a prominent attorney with extensive contracts in state and local governments, has been a key fundraiser for the senator throughout his long political career.

Scarinci was recorded in 1999 by Oscar Sandoval, a Union City psychiatrist who had contracts with the county jail and hospital in Hudson County, according to two people familiar with the tapes who requested anonymity because the recordings are evidence in a pending lawsuit.

A transcript of the recorded telephone conversation was obtained by The Star-Ledger and verified by the two sources. In it, Scarinci urged Sandoval to hire another physician, Vincente Ruiz, telling him: "Menendez will consider that a favor."

Matt Miller, spokesman for Menendez's campaign, said last night, "If this transcript is accurate, then Scarinci was using Menendez's name without his authorization or his knowledge. That was a lapse in judgment on his part and because of it, he will no longer have any role in our campaign."

Menendez, locked in a tight U.S. Senate election race against Republican Tom Kean Jr., is already facing political fallout from a federal investigation into a rental deal he had with a nonprofit organization in Union City years ago.

Menendez is in a tight race, and given the state party's track record (Bob Torricelli, James McGreevey), this is one more headache Menendez doesn't need a month before Election Day. Whether Tom Kean can capitalize on it and use it to lure away Democratic voters remains to be seen.

The Grudge

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut for Lieberman) gave an interview to the conservative blog Pajamas Media. The headline:

In an exclusive video interview with Pajamas Media, Senator Joseph Lieberman - the former Democrat now running as an Independent to retain his Connecticut senate seat - was asked by PJM’s CEO Roger Simon if he could forgive once close friends Chris Dodd, Al Gore and Teddy Kennedy, for endorsing his opponent Ned Lamont, the former Democratic Party vice-presidential candidate responded: "I can forgive... but I probably won’t forget."

If Senator Lieberman hasn't completely burned his bridges with Connecticut Democrats and the national party yet, this is more fuel for the fire.

Anything You Say Can and Will Be Used Against You, Part 2

CBS News has an interesting article about how Internet video sites like YouTube are changing or impacting the political process. Check it out.

Digging in the Dirt

Photo from CBS News/60 Minutes

It's that time of year again in Washington... not election season, but the release of Bob Woodward's next book. Last time around, he broke the story of George "Slam Dunk" Tenet's case for WMD in Iraq, among other things.

I'm not one to judge a book by its cover, but the title doesn't sound too flattering to the Bush Administration.



Woodward taped an interview with Mike Wallace that will run on 60 Minutes this Sunday night. Here's the teaser from CBS News:

According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. "It’s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That's more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces," says Woodward.

The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. "The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], 'Oh, no, things are going to get better,'" he tells Wallace. "Now there’s public, and then there’s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know," says Woodward.

"The insurgents know what they are doing. They know the level of violence and how effective they are. Who doesn't know? The American public," Woodward tells Wallace.

Woodward also reports that the president and vice president often meet with Henry Kissinger, who was President Richard Nixon’s secretary of state, as an adviser. Says Woodward, "Now what’s Kissinger’s advice? In Iraq, he declared very simply, ‘Victory is the only meaningful exit strategy.'" Woodward adds. "This is so fascinating. Kissinger’s fighting the Vietnam War again because, in his view, the problem in Vietnam was we lost our will."

President Bush is absolutely certain that he has the U.S. and Iraq on the right course, says Woodward. So certain is the president on this matter, Woodward says, that when Mr. Bush had key Republicans to the White House to discuss Iraq, he told them, "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me."

The book is being released one month before the election, so you can bank on political operatives who are going to read it cover to cover to pick and choose the tidbits that suit their opposition research and talking points. Whether any of Woodward's revelations this time have an impact on the election remain to be seen. The person who got it worse last time was George Tenet. As a result of Woodward's reporting, the phrase "slam dunk" is guaranteed to be in the first or second paragraph of his obituary.

I'll watch 60 Minutes to see what else Woodward has up his sleeve, and I'll pick up the book next week.

Update: The New York Times has obtained a copy of the book and written up some of the highlights.

The White House ignored an urgent warning in September 2003 from a top Iraq adviser who said that thousands of additional American troops were desperately needed to quell the insurgency there, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter and author. The book describes a White House riven by dysfunction and division over the war.

The warning is described in “State of Denial,” scheduled for publication on Monday by Simon & Schuster. The book says President Bush’s top advisers were often at odds among themselves, and sometimes were barely on speaking terms, but shared a tendency to dismiss as too pessimistic assessments from American commanders and others about the situation in Iraq.

As late as November 2003, Mr. Bush is quoted as saying of the situation in Iraq: “I don’t want anyone in the cabinet to say it is an insurgency. I don’t think we are there yet.”

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is described as disengaged from the nuts-and-bolts of occupying and reconstructing Iraq — a task that was initially supposed to be under the direction of the Pentagon — and so hostile toward Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, that President Bush had to tell him to return her phone calls. The American commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, is reported to have told visitors to his headquarters in Qatar in the fall of 2005 that “Rumsfeld doesn’t have any credibility anymore” to make a public case for the American strategy for victory in Iraq.

The book, bought by a reporter for The New York Times at retail price in advance of its official release, is the third that Mr. Woodward has written chronicling the inner debates in the White House after the Sept. 11 attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the subsequent decision to invade Iraq. Like Mr. Woodward’s previous works, the book includes lengthy verbatim quotations from conversations and describes what senior officials are thinking at various times, without identifying the sources for the information.

Mr. Woodward writes that his book is based on “interviews with President Bush’s national security team, their deputies, and other senior and key players in the administration responsible for the military, the diplomacy, and the intelligence on Iraq.” Some of those interviewed, including Mr. Rumsfeld, are identified by name, but neither Mr. Bush nor Vice President Dick Cheney agreed to be interviewed, the book says.
...
The book describes a deep fissure between Colin L. Powell, Mr. Bush’s first secretary of state, and Mr. Rumsfeld: When Mr. Powell was eased out after the 2004 elections, he told Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, that “if I go, Don should go,” referring to Mr. Rumsfeld.

Mr. Card then made a concerted effort to oust Mr. Rumsfeld at the end of 2005, according to the book, but was overruled by President Bush, who feared that it would disrupt the coming Iraqi elections and operations at the Pentagon.

Vice President Cheney is described as a man so determined to find proof that his claim about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was accurate that, in the summer of 2003, his aides were calling the chief weapons inspector, David Kay, with specific satellite coordinates as the sites of possible caches. None resulted in any finds.
...
The 537-page book describes tensions among senior officials from the very beginning of the administration. Mr. Woodward writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Mr. Rumsfeld questioned the electronic signals from terrorism suspects that the National Security Agency had been intercepting, wondering whether they might be part of an elaborate deception plan by Al Qaeda.

On July 10, 2001, the book says, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice at the White House to impress upon her the seriousness of the intelligence the agency was collecting about an impending attack. But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously.

In the weeks before the Iraq war began, President Bush’s parents did not share his confidence that the invasion of Iraq was the right step, the book recounts. Mr. Woodward writes about a private exchange in January 2003 between Mr. Bush’s mother, Barbara Bush, the former first lady, and David L. Boren, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a Bush family friend.

The book says Mrs. Bush asked Mr. Boren whether it was right to be worried about a possible invasion of Iraq, and then to have confided that the president’s father, former President George H. W. Bush, “is certainly worried and is losing sleep over it; he’s up at night worried.”
...
Mr. Rumsfeld reached into political matters at the periphery of his responsibilities, according to the book. At one point, Mr. Bush traveled to Ohio, where the Abrams battle tank was manufactured. Mr. Rumsfeld phoned Mr. Card to complain that Mr. Bush should not have made the visit because Mr. Rumsfeld thought the heavy tank was incompatible with his vision of a light and fast military of the future. Mr. Woodward wrote that Mr. Card believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was “out of control.”

The fruitless search for unconventional weapons caused tension between Vice President Cheney’s office, the C.I.A. and officials in Iraq. Mr. Woodward wrote that Mr. Kay, the chief weapons inspector in Iraq, e-mailed top C.I.A. officials directly in the summer of 2003 with his most important early findings.

At one point, when Mr. Kay warned that it was possible the Iraqis might have had the capability to make such weapons but did not actually produce them, waiting instead until they were needed, the book says he was told by John McLaughlin, the C.I.A.’s deputy director: “Don’t tell anyone this. This could be upsetting. Be very careful. We can’t let this out until we’re sure.”

Mr. Cheney was involved in the details of the hunt for illicit weapons, the book says. One night, Mr. Woodward wrote, Mr. Kay was awakened at 3 a.m. by an aide who told him Mr. Cheney’s office was on the phone. It says Mr. Kay was told that Mr. Cheney wanted to make sure he had read a highly classified communications intercept picked up from Syria indicating a possible location for chemical weapons.

Interesting but not surprising that Bush and Cheney did not agree to be interviewed for this book. My guess is that when they heard about the stuff Woodward had uncovered, they decided to cut him off.

Does Webb Have a Race Problem?

From today's Washington Post:

Webb described taking drives through the black neighborhood of Watts, where he and members of his ROTC unit used racial epithets and pointed fake guns at blacks to scare them.

"They would hop into their cars, and would go down to Watts with these buddies of his," Cragg said Webb told him. "They would take the rifles down there. They would call then [epithets], point the rifles at them, pull the triggers and then drive off laughing. One night, some guys caught them and beat . . . them. And that was the end of that."

Cragg said Webb told him the Watts story during a 1983 interview for a Vietnam veterans magazine. Cragg, who described himself as a Republican who would vote for Allen, did not include the story in his article. He provided a transcript of the interview, but the transcript does not contain the ROTC story. He said he still remembers the exchange vividly more than 20 years later.

As a journalist I would be derelict if I did not write down detailed notes or a complete transcript of any interview, particularly if it were an explosive allegation such as the one Cragg is now saying Webb told him but he didn't include in his story.

Unless more people come forward and corroborate Cragg's claims (note the use of the word they when Cragg tells the story, implying that several people were involved in this) this will not be a big issue for Jim Webb as it is with George Allen. I should also note that a big part of Allen's problems were caused because his reactions or remarks were caught on tape. However, until Webb issues a more forceful denial about this (read the rest of the Post story), he will appear to be ducking the issue.

Uh Oh...

A couple of days ago, I mentioned the explosive allegation first reported by Salon.com that Senator George Allen (R-Virginia) stuffed a severed deer's head in the mailbox of a house in an African American neighborhood. Again, I will note in fairness to Allen that he denied the allegations during an interview he gave to the Associated Press.

Looks like the alleged Godfather stunt is now being checked in the historical archives:

I spoke to a deputy in the Louisa County Sheriff's Office late yesterday afternoon. They are looking though old records for any report of a deer's head stuffed into a black family's mailbox. This is an active investigation again- I have the cell phone number of deputy working on the case.

More bad news for Senator Allen on the same allegation - the New Republic's Ryan Lizza has found a second, on the record source who heard about the incident from one of the men who was there when it happened.

A former college classmate of George Allen and Ken Shelton, the North Carolina radiologist who says Allen regularly used the N-word in the 1970s and once stuck the head of a deer in the mailbox of a black family, has come forward to corroborate one of Shelton's accusations.

"I'm not out to get George Allen," says George Beam, a 53 year-old technical manager in the nuclear industry, who lives in Forest, Virginia and who spoke to The New Republic this morning. "I just think Kenny Shelton is a fine, upstanding person, and I know he is telling the truth."

Beam was roommates with Billy Lanahan, now deceased, who along with Allen and Shelton, was the third member of the now infamous hunting party. According to Beam, Lanahan later told him the bizarre story of the three men stuffing the deer head into a mailbox. He says Lanahan did not tell him that the prank had any racial overtones.

"Some time drinking a beer at U Heights," Beam says, referring to the campus housing complex where Beam, Lanahan, and Allen all lived, "Lanahan told me they went hunting and killed a deer. All I know is they cut off a deer head and stuck it in someone's mailbox. ... He didn't say it was racial -- just said they stuck it in a mailbox as a prank."

For Allen's sake, I hope this winds up being a wild goose chase, because if it is confirmed that this incident did happen, 1) his credibility will be shot, and 2) his political career will be over.

More Skeletons Coming Out of George Allen's Closet?

Drip, drip, drip...

The New York Times has another person on the record who remembers Senator George Allen (R-Virginia) making racist comments, this time in the early 1980's. This person is independent of the three former football teammates who spoke with Salon.com.

Separately, Professor Larry Sabato of UVA, who was a classmate of Allen's at UVA in the 70's and is considered one of the most renown political scientists and observers in the country, told Chris Matthews that he didn't believe Allen's denials.



The key part of the interview:

MATTHEWS: What about the charges that he actually used bad language that some of us are familiar with in this country, in fact most Americans are, the bad language about people from another background?
SABATO: Well, I can't say how frequently he did it, but I don't believe him when he denies ever having done it. [Matthews begins talking over him] That is just not true.
MATTHEWS: That in this country, for that generation, is a very hard test. The accusation here I believe is that he was distinctive in what is being called racial hatred, that he regularly used an awful word, the N-word, with some sort of attitude. Is that true?
SABATO: Well, I'm simply going to say that I'm going to stay with I know is the case, and the fact is that he did use the N-word, whether he's denying it now or not. He did use it. It was the 70's, you're right, it was a harsh term. It was an obscenity as far as I'm concerned.
...
MATTHEWS: But you say he used the N-word?
SABATO: That is correct.

Whether this is based on direct first-hand insight or rumors and hearsay from the time, Sabato's words probably carry more weight on this race and Senator Allen than most people because of his longstanding ties to the state and his understanding of Virginia and national politics.

Now, in fairness to Allen, only three of his former teammates have said he used racist language, and the graduate student who talked to the New York Times. He also denied the allegations in the Salon.com article in an interview with the Associated Press:

"The story and his comments and assertions in there are completely false," Allen said during an interview with AP reporters and editors. "I don't remember ever using that word and it is absolutely false that that was ever part of my vocabulary."

The bottom line: it is now a media open season on George Allen's past comments or views on race. If there is any truth to this or any more people who come forward to the news media on the record, Allen will be in very serious trouble with about 5 weeks to go before Election Day.

Anything You Say Can and Will Be Used Against You

Salon.com is reporting that three of Senator George Allen's (R-Virginia) college football teammates remember him making racist comments. One is quoted on the record, the other two were on background.

The whole piece is well written and well-sourced in terms of Allen's former teammates, who have positive, negative, or indifferent memories of when they knew him as a football player at UVA. Allen's senate office and re-election campaign did not return calls for comment.

The most damning and shocking allegation in the piece:

Shelton [Allen's former teammate who went on the record with his allegations] said he also remembers a disturbing deer hunting trip with Allen on land that was owned by the family of Billy Lanahan, a wide receiver on the team. After they had killed a deer, Shelton said he remembers Allen asking Lanahan where the local black residents lived. Shelton said Allen then drove the three of them to that neighborhood with the severed head of the deer. "He proceeded to take the doe's head and stuff it into a mailbox," Shelton said.

If there is any truth to any of these allegations, Allen's political ambitions for the White House are toast. He may not even survive his re-election bid for the Senate. First there was the controversy over his "macaca" comments to a Webb volunteer, then there was the "controversy" over how he reacted to a reporter's poorly phrased question about his Jewish heritage, and now this. He probably could have survived any of those individually without serious damage to his political career, but take all three together and I think he may want to update his resume once November comes around.

Off With Their Heads!

NY Times: Chairwoman Leaves Hewlett in Spying Furor

PALO ALTO, Calif., Sept. 22 — The furor over Hewlett-Packard’s spying operation claimed its highest-ranking victim on Friday with the immediate resignation of its chairwoman, Patricia C. Dunn.

The move was announced by Mark V. Hurd, the chief executive, who will now succeed her. But even as he offered an account of an investigation gone awry, and offered apologies to those whose privacy was invaded, he made it clear that many questions had yet to be answered.

His voice shaking, Mr. Hurd said a review of the means used to trace leaks from the company’s board had produced “very disturbing” findings. He also conceded that “I could have, and I should have,” read a report prepared for him while the operation was under way.

The investigators’ zeal led them into a shadowy world of surveillance, and in the end the giant computer company was embarrassed by its own use of technology.

Two executives who supervised the effort were also reported to be leaving.

Dunn should have been axed when the story broke a couple of weeks ago. There is no way she could have stayed on at HP in any capacity after this mess. In essence, Dunn has become the biggest pariah in corporate America this side of Ken Lay. She had better get some good lawyers fast because I have a feeling things are going to get a lot worse for her in the days, weeks, and months ahead.

Un-Able Danger

NY Times: Claim 9/11 Terrorists Were Identified Is Rejected

Another 9/11 conspiracy theory shot to hell.

On the bright side, at least ABC's "Path to 9/11" didn't show or mention the Able Danger Unit along with the other inaccuracies in the series..

Hewlett Packard-Gate

This couldn't have happened to a nicer corporate board.

If I were an HP shareholder, I would demand the resignation of everyone who came up with or helped carry out this scheme. Contrary to popular belief, there IS such a thing as bad press and bad publicity, and once it starts to affect the bottom line, it becomes a shareholder issue.

Quick Update

I've been swamped with school work for the last week or so, so I haven't been able to write on this very much. I have a few ideas kicking around and some possible blog entries at different stages of completion.

In the meantime, keep yourself entertained with this stunning live performance by Jeff Buckley.

Facts Are Stupid Things...

I recently wrote this fact check/editorial piece for the Daily Trojan on ABC's controversial miniseries "The Path to 9/11." For the sake of brevity, I was unable to dissect each scene and cite sources as in depth as I would have liked. So as a companion to that, I've posted my research with source information in this entry.

Unless otherwise mentioned, my main sources of research were:

The 9/11 Commission Report
Steve Coll, "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001."
Richard Clarke, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror."

Movie: In the most controversial scene of the movie, a CIA operative and Northern Alliance fighters in Afghanistan had Osama bin Laden in their sights, but aborted the mission after a phone call with Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger.
Reality: Both Berger and Clinton/Bush counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke sharply dispute this scene. There is no evidence that the CIA at any point had Osama bin Laden in their sights to call in an air strike.

The original cut of the movie had Berger hanging up the phone before the CIA team decided to abort the mission. This scene was cut before Berger hangs up the phone. However, an anti-Berger/anti-Clinton comment [“Are there any men left in Washington or are they all cowards?”] by Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud was left in the movie.

According to the 9/11 Commission, the decision to abort the operations which were never carried out were ultimately based on the recommendations of CIA Director George Tenet, not Berger. Because this never happened, a scene in the movie a few minutes after the August 1998 bombings on the East Africa embassies where a CIA analyst tearfully barges into a conference room and blasts George Tenet for not ordering the strike on bin Laden shown in the movie is also inaccurate.

The following is a timeline of attempts during the Clinton Administration to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, as documented by the 9/11 Commission:
Fall of 1997: The CIA draws up preliminary plans to capture bin Laden alive.
June 1998: The CIA plans a raid to capture bin Laden for June 23, with intentions of getting him out of Afghanistan within four weeks. Although the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision, this operation was aborted by CIA Director George Tenet at the recommendation of his operations officers.
August 1998: After the East Africa embassy bombings in August, the Clinton Administration retaliates with missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan with the intention of killing bin Laden.
September-October 1998: Afghan assets of the CIA claim they attempted to ambush Bin Laden four times with the intention of capturing him alive, with no success.
December 1998: Senior officials decide against recommending another missile strike against bin Laden after getting a possible lead on his location. Clinton later modifies his previous order, authorizing the Afghan assets to kill bin Laden if capturing him was not possible.
February 1999: Intelligence indicating bin Laden’s presence at a camp in Afghanistan. The proposed missile strike is eventually called off after discussions with Tenet who felt the intelligence was unreliable.
May 1999: Several CIA assets report on bin Laden’s location over a period of five days. Berger believes Tenet made the decision against the strike.
The 9/11 Commission considered this “perhaps the last, and most likely the best” opportunity to target bin Laden with a missile strike before 9/11. No missile strikes against bin Laden were considered again until after 9/11.
[Sources: 9/11 Commission, p. 108-121, 126-143. Coll, p. 371-396, 410-412, 421-28, 445-450. Clarke, p. 148-154, 188-190, 199-204.]

Movie: The CIA spotted Osama bin Laden while testing a prototype for an unmanned aerial vehicle.
Reality: This is true, although the depiction in the movie is highly exaggerated. In the movie, it took place after the USS Cole bombing.
Steve Coll and the 9/11 Commission reported that the CIA began a series of test flights on the Predator in September of 2000 continuing for several months. The CIA spotted a man believed to be bin Laden two or three times while testing unmanned Predator drones equipped with video cameras. Ten of the fifteen test flights were considered successful, according to the 9/11 Commission.

The video footage of bin Laden seen in the film is also grossly exaggerated, showing near perfect and clear color images of him in a training camp. The actual footage, which was leaked to NBC News approximately two years ago, was grainier and shot from a much greater distance than the footage shown in the movie.

The film is inaccurate showing that a Predator was lost during the test run after an encounter with a Taliban jet. A jet was scrambled to intercept the Predator during one test flight but it flew by the Predator without even seeing it. On one occasion, a plane crash landed shortly after takeoff. This resulted in a bureaucratic turf war between the CIA and the Air Force over who was going to get stuck with the repair bill for the $3 million plane.

The film is accurate when it says the planes were not weaponized at the time, so were not used to attempt to kill bin Laden. Since 9/11, Predator drones have been armed with Hellfire missiles and used in at least two operations to assassinate al Qaeda operatives.
[Sources: 9/11 Commission, p. 187-190. Coll, p. 520-531. Clarke, p. 220-222. NBC News, "Osama bin Laden: Missed Opportunities."]

Movie: Condoleezza Rice reads the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) warning, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
Reality: Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission that the PDB contained "historical information based on old reporting," "no new threat information," and that it did not "warn of any coming attacks inside the United States." Her characterization of the PDB, which was first revealed by the Washington Post and later declassified at the request of the 9/11 Commission, is accurate.

The 9/11 Commission also noted that this was the 36th PDB item that year which was related to bin Laden or al Qaeda, and the first devoted to a possible attack in the United States.

The movie does not depict President Bush receiving this briefing. According to Ron Suskind’s book “The One Percent Doctrine,” after he was given this briefing by a CIA officer while on vacation at his Crawford ranch, President Bush responded, “All right, you’ve covered your ass, now.”
[Sources: 9/11 Commission, p. 260-263. Transcript of Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Suskind, p. 1-2]

Movie: While chairing the Bush Administration's first principals meeting on terrorism on September 4, 2001, Condoleezza Rice says, "Morning, gentlemen. As a result of the August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing, the president is tired of swatting flies. He believes Al Qaeda is a real threat, and he wants to consider real action. He specifically asked about the armed Predator. Where are we with that?"
Reality: Condoleezza Rice and others recalled the President saying "I'm tired of swatting at flies," and also reportedly said "I'm tired of playing defense. I want to play offense. I want to take the fight to the terrorists," in early March of 2001, according to the 9/11 Commission Report.

Regarding the Predator, Richard Clarke and CIA Counterterrorism official Cofer Black were early and vocal proponents of the program, especially a weaponized version of it. There is some dispute whether there was an endorsement of resuming flights during an April 30, 2001 meeting, but Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley ultimately "went along with the CIA and the Pentagon, holding off on reconnaissance flights until the armed Predator was ready," according to the 9/11 Commission. The Commission also reported that Hadley tried to hurry the development of the armed Predator, directing Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Richard Myers to "deploy Predators capable of being armed no later than September 1."

The Principals Committee had its first meeting on al Qaeda, chaired by Condoleezza Rice, on September 4, 2001. Clarke sent Rice a memo that day which reads, "are we serious about dealing with the al Qida threat?...Is al Qida a big deal?...Decision makers should imagine themselves on a future day when the CSG has not succeeded in stopping al Qida attacks and hundreds of Americans lay dead in several countries, including the US."

After being briefed by her staff that the weaponized Predator was not ready for deployment, Rice commented about potential for using it in spring of 2002.
[Sources: 9/11 Commission p. 202, 210-213. Clarke, p. 237-238.]

Movie: Ahmed Shah Massoud warns the CIA that an operation is underway in the United States involving aviation hijackings shortly before he is assassinated.
Reality: There is no evidence that Massoud ever warned the CIA about the 9/11 plot, although in the movie he is shown using alarmist language about the plot, noting that it would happen in the United States and would involve aviation hijackings. However, during a press conference in France on April 5, 2001, he warned "If President Bush doesn’t help us, then these terrorists will damage the United States and Europe very soon – and it will be too late."
[Source: Coll, p. 555]

Movie: 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta sets off red flags when trying to check in for his American Airlines flight at Logan International Airport in Boston.
Reality: Atta was screened by U.S. Airways employees in Portland, Maine after being selected by a computerized pre-screening system, not American Airways employees in Boston. However, three other members of Atta’s hijacking team were chosen for screening at Logan. All five members of the Atta team cleared the security checkpoint and were able to board their flight. American Airlines has issued a press release calling this scene "inaccurate and irresponsible," and according to Ad Week, is said to be considering legal action against ABC and pulling all of its advertising from the network.
[Source: 9/11 Commission, p. 1-2]

Movie: Vice President Cheney has a conversation with President Bush the morning of 9/11 where the President gives him the order to shoot down hijacked planes.
Reality: The 9/11 Commission was unable to find any conclusive evidence that this phone call ever took place. From the report:

Among the sources that reflect other important events of that morning, there is no documentary evidence for this call, but the relevant sources are incomplete. Others nearby who were taking notes, such as the Vice President's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, who sat next to him, and Mrs. Cheney, did not note a call between the President and Vice President immediately after the Vice President entered the conference room.

Vanity Fair recently obtained the entire unedited NORAD tapes from 9/11 and did an extensive analysis of the contents. The magazine reported, "President Bush would finally grant commanders the authority to give that order [to shoot down the planes] at 10:18, which—though no one knew it at the time—was 15 minutes after the attack was over."

Richard Clarke, who was in a different room of the White House than the Vice President and Condoleezza Rice when this happens, remembers getting a message relayed to him by a military aide saying "Tell the Pentagon they have authority from the President to shoot down hostile aircraft, repeat, they have authority to shoot down hostile aircraft." What is not clear from his narrative is at what time he got this message ordering to shoot down the planes, before or after the 10:18 time reported in Vanity Fair.
[Sources: 9/11 Commission Report, p. 40-42. Vanity Fair "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes." September 2006 issue, p. 262-285. Clarke, p. 1-8]