Wednesday, August 04, 2004
rhapsody strikes again
Just opened my rhapsody music player and got hooked by an "album spotlight" (read advertisement), for "Target and a Bullet". Anyone heard of Citizen Cope? Am now enjoying his debut album. Nice stuff. But then I'm a blues fan with an underfed taste for rap.
case of the missing secretary
For those of us who like a little noir with our news: Where's Rumsfeld? (washingtonpost.com)
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
filling in the blanks
Something I've been noticing recently is that that left and right leaning blogs focus on different sets of stories or issues. Some stories, of course, are big enough for both, but many stories discussed ad nauseum by one side don't get even a ripple on the other. As a result, bloggers on the left or right tend to fall into a habit of shortcuts and obscure references, assuming that readers know what the heck they're talking about.
I think I did that in my last post with my "oh please" snide remark about Ridge not playing politics with the terrorist alerts. So here's the background.
Today Ridge said this: 'We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security.'
Sounds good, but is it true? Unfortunately no. Ridge apparently forgot the statement he made two days ago announcing the elevated terrorist alert, in which he included the following statements:
'But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the President's leadership in the war against terror. The reports that have led to this alert are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan. Such operations and partnerships give us insight into the enemy so we can better target our defensive measures here and away from home.'
Legitimate point or not, it is 100% pure politics.
I think I did that in my last post with my "oh please" snide remark about Ridge not playing politics with the terrorist alerts. So here's the background.
Today Ridge said this: 'We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security.'
Sounds good, but is it true? Unfortunately no. Ridge apparently forgot the statement he made two days ago announcing the elevated terrorist alert, in which he included the following statements:
'But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the President's leadership in the war against terror. The reports that have led to this alert are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan. Such operations and partnerships give us insight into the enemy so we can better target our defensive measures here and away from home.'
Legitimate point or not, it is 100% pure politics.
homeland security
I personally don't have a problem with terror alerts based on "unspecified" information. Although I do think there is an element of politics in the timing--notwithstanding Ridge's "we don't do politics" disclaimer today (oh please!!)--there's also a strong desire not to be caught flatfooted and napping the next time around. And I really think the latter is the stronger. We've told our government in no uncertain terms that we want to be kept informed (9/11 commission), so its pretty rude to complain when they do.
About this most recent alert, I can think of several scenarios why a valid threat might include information from 2 or 3 years ago. I, at least simply don't have enough information to support or condemn. So I guess the bottom line for me is that I give HS the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, heightened terror alerts don't really panic me. That doesn't happen to be part of my nature.
That doesn't mean there aren't problems. First, Ridge really has to stop the "rah rah brought to you by the amazing BushCo" endorsements tacked on to an alert announcement. It just weakens and cheapens the whole thing. Second, HS needs to realize that these alerts will bring to light weak spots in security caused by lack of federal funding, and they need to respond appropriately. Third, HS needs to deal with the inevitable widespread panic by doing more than just inform people of an alert--give us specific instructions on what to watch for, what to be ready for.
I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to have something like a national fire alarm program. If it was random and no one knew whether it was real or not, it would not only serve to give people practice in dealing with an alert, it would also allow HS to slip in a real alert without broadcasting what kind of intelligence they've acquired, which is another argument against these alerts. If the program laid out very specific and practical tasks for citizens to do, and if there was always the possibility that it was a drill, this would lessen the sense of general panic. At the same time, I think people are motivated to want to join in, practice. So I don't think, at least at the moment, that people would just brush it off. People overall would feel good about having a purpose, being able to take some small amount of control over the situation, and it would serve a practical purpose that over time people would do the right things at the right times. At the same time a national program would help us evaluate gaps and holes in infrastructure. It would be important to have a public analysis period afterwards, to learn from each exercise. And of course, the process would need to evolve over time as technology and targets change.
Something to think about, maybe.
About this most recent alert, I can think of several scenarios why a valid threat might include information from 2 or 3 years ago. I, at least simply don't have enough information to support or condemn. So I guess the bottom line for me is that I give HS the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, heightened terror alerts don't really panic me. That doesn't happen to be part of my nature.
That doesn't mean there aren't problems. First, Ridge really has to stop the "rah rah brought to you by the amazing BushCo" endorsements tacked on to an alert announcement. It just weakens and cheapens the whole thing. Second, HS needs to realize that these alerts will bring to light weak spots in security caused by lack of federal funding, and they need to respond appropriately. Third, HS needs to deal with the inevitable widespread panic by doing more than just inform people of an alert--give us specific instructions on what to watch for, what to be ready for.
I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to have something like a national fire alarm program. If it was random and no one knew whether it was real or not, it would not only serve to give people practice in dealing with an alert, it would also allow HS to slip in a real alert without broadcasting what kind of intelligence they've acquired, which is another argument against these alerts. If the program laid out very specific and practical tasks for citizens to do, and if there was always the possibility that it was a drill, this would lessen the sense of general panic. At the same time, I think people are motivated to want to join in, practice. So I don't think, at least at the moment, that people would just brush it off. People overall would feel good about having a purpose, being able to take some small amount of control over the situation, and it would serve a practical purpose that over time people would do the right things at the right times. At the same time a national program would help us evaluate gaps and holes in infrastructure. It would be important to have a public analysis period afterwards, to learn from each exercise. And of course, the process would need to evolve over time as technology and targets change.
Something to think about, maybe.
Monday, August 02, 2004
did novak act alone?
I've been having an intriguing exchange of views on Just One Minute regarding the Plame affair and the most recent news on a State Department memo. As I mentioned in a previous post, I think this memo will provide a sufficient escape route, because it provides the information that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and was involved in the Niger trip (however minimally) without identifying her as a covert operative.
I still maintain that Novak is still in the hot seat, however.
And I'll just say one more thing about Novak. At the same time we were hearing a lot of rhetoric in the this country about what should and shouldn't be reported for the safety of the country as well as troops abroad, when media organizations had been censoring themselves left and right to minimize the vision of a divided nation before the war--Novak makes his own judgement about the potential harm to Plame and her work? Does he really have that level of arrogance?
In fact, and here's a new thought--is it really credible that Novak would take it on himself to make that judgement about Plame? Or is it more likely he received assurances from someone he considered higher up the food chain than the CIA personnel he talked to?
Again, I think this will all come down to whether Novak finds it preferable to take his punishment (if any) and keep his mouth shut, or whether he rolls.
I still maintain that Novak is still in the hot seat, however.
And I'll just say one more thing about Novak. At the same time we were hearing a lot of rhetoric in the this country about what should and shouldn't be reported for the safety of the country as well as troops abroad, when media organizations had been censoring themselves left and right to minimize the vision of a divided nation before the war--Novak makes his own judgement about the potential harm to Plame and her work? Does he really have that level of arrogance?
In fact, and here's a new thought--is it really credible that Novak would take it on himself to make that judgement about Plame? Or is it more likely he received assurances from someone he considered higher up the food chain than the CIA personnel he talked to?
Again, I think this will all come down to whether Novak finds it preferable to take his punishment (if any) and keep his mouth shut, or whether he rolls.
perfidy of polls`
The new Gallup polls was ugly, but ABCNEWS.com : ABC News' The Note tells us to take heart:
"With all due respect to Newsweek and Gallup, hold onto your hat and hair for tonight's ABC News/Washington Post poll. And please say 'boost' or 'bump,' and not 'bounce.'"
"With all due respect to Newsweek and Gallup, hold onto your hat and hair for tonight's ABC News/Washington Post poll. And please say 'boost' or 'bump,' and not 'bounce.'"
Sunday, August 01, 2004
plame paraphanelia
Check out this site Just One Minute with a somewhat more conservative (can I say neocon?) bent. Tom Maguire obviously does a lot of research and provides plenty of links to point you in the right directions. Doesn't make his arguments correct (grin) but it does inspire thought, which is always a good thing!
Here's an interesting example: Footnotes: The Joseph Wilson / Valerie Plame Timeline
Here's an interesting example: Footnotes: The Joseph Wilson / Valerie Plame Timeline
questions on Niger forgeries
Re Josh Marshall's Niger post today: YAY that this story is finally coming out. I'd begun to think it, whatever it was, had passed its sell by date.
[BTW--absolutely do not spend money to read the London Times report. Josh's post is longer and contains infinitely more information. The only piece of new info is that the "security consultant" calls himself "Giacomo".]
One issue I hope gets cleared up is the timing. As far as I can tell, based on Josh's information and the Senate IC report, here's the timeline:
late 2000
1. When the SISMI set up the Niger embassy contact in late 2000, was it specifically to funnel these forgeries? If so, why the year-long lead time? Unless there is some much larger plan of which the forgeries are only a small part, this seems excessive. Especially considering how bad the forgeries reportedly are--could SISMI really not see this for themselves? (Unanswerable question, of course.)
1b. A related question: what possible long-term use would a Nigerien conduit have for the SISMI--that is, what amount of useful information could credibly originate from a Nigerien Embassy employee? At first glance, it seems obvious that the conduit was set up specifically for the forgeries. On the other hand, "Giacomo" couldn't possibly know about the forgeries, and he was willing to pay ~$500 a month for info. So what's the context behind these relationships? (I am trying to point out that some serious questions come up here when evaluating plausibility from the point of view of a specific individual and point in time.)
2. When did the Niger conduit give the forgeries to "Giacomo"?
3. Why did an entire year pass between when the Niger conduit gave the forgeries to "Giacomo" and when he gave them to Burba?
4. What prompted "Giacomo" to pass them to Burba at the exact moment he did?
[BTW--absolutely do not spend money to read the London Times report. Josh's post is longer and contains infinitely more information. The only piece of new info is that the "security consultant" calls himself "Giacomo".]
One issue I hope gets cleared up is the timing. As far as I can tell, based on Josh's information and the Senate IC report, here's the timeline:
late 2000
SISMI sets up link between "Giacomo" and Niger embassy contact.late 2001
SISMI gives forgeries to Niger embassy contact to pass to "Giacomo".
SISMI also summarizes the info in the forgeries and disseminates to other countries including US & Britain.Oct. 2002
"Giacomo" gives the forgeries to Elizabetta Burba.My questions:
1. When the SISMI set up the Niger embassy contact in late 2000, was it specifically to funnel these forgeries? If so, why the year-long lead time? Unless there is some much larger plan of which the forgeries are only a small part, this seems excessive. Especially considering how bad the forgeries reportedly are--could SISMI really not see this for themselves? (Unanswerable question, of course.)
1b. A related question: what possible long-term use would a Nigerien conduit have for the SISMI--that is, what amount of useful information could credibly originate from a Nigerien Embassy employee? At first glance, it seems obvious that the conduit was set up specifically for the forgeries. On the other hand, "Giacomo" couldn't possibly know about the forgeries, and he was willing to pay ~$500 a month for info. So what's the context behind these relationships? (I am trying to point out that some serious questions come up here when evaluating plausibility from the point of view of a specific individual and point in time.)
2. When did the Niger conduit give the forgeries to "Giacomo"?
3. Why did an entire year pass between when the Niger conduit gave the forgeries to "Giacomo" and when he gave them to Burba?
4. What prompted "Giacomo" to pass them to Burba at the exact moment he did?
plame escape route?
This Newsweek story says that Powell recently testified for the Fitzgerald grand jury investigation of the Plame outing.
In the midst of reassurances that the probe is comprehensive ("sources say the decision to question Powell shows the thoroughness with which Fitzgerald is conducting the probe") there are two statements that will concern people anxious to see heads roll over this issue.
1. "The [State Department intelligence] report stated that Wilson's wife had attended a meeting at the CIA where the decision was made to send Wilson to Niger, but it did not mention her last name or undercover status."
The significance of this report is apparently that Powell had it with him when he traveled with Bush to Africa in July 2003. The implication is that Powell may have diseminated info from this report to Bush.
Now, before you start jumping up and down screaming "It was Bush! It was Bush!", think again and realize that it is highly unlikely Bush personally picked up the phone and called Novak. It's far more likely that he told someone else to make sure the involvement of Wilson's wife got out to the public. The obvious bad news is that this report provides for the possibility that someone high up might know "wife" without knowing "undercover operative".
This does not in any way clear Novak, however. Josh Marshall analyzed last year that Novak's use of the word "operative" to mean "undercover agent" was 100% consistent. Although this point is unlikely to sway a grand jury to an indictment, the fact that Novak was contacted by CIA and asked not to reveal Plame's identity should do some swaying.
2. "Though most lawyers thought the investigation was nearly complete, sources say Fitzgerald has recently recalled witnesses before the grand jury—apparently to ask about issues raised by a new Senate intelligence committee report that seemed to contradict some of Wilson's public statements about Plame's role in his trip to Niger."
In the face of a recent barrage of commentary that Plame's involvement in Wilson's trip is somehow supposed to make outing her acceptable, many people pointed out that the issue was wholly irrelevant from a legal standpoint. Surely Fitzgerald would not be swayed by these clever sounding but erroneous arguments? Well, perhaps not.
The only real good news in this article is that virtually every item of information and analysis in it comes from anonymous "sources". Perhaps these unnamed sources are trying to get ahead of any Powell testimony buzz.
In the midst of reassurances that the probe is comprehensive ("sources say the decision to question Powell shows the thoroughness with which Fitzgerald is conducting the probe") there are two statements that will concern people anxious to see heads roll over this issue.
1. "The [State Department intelligence] report stated that Wilson's wife had attended a meeting at the CIA where the decision was made to send Wilson to Niger, but it did not mention her last name or undercover status."
The significance of this report is apparently that Powell had it with him when he traveled with Bush to Africa in July 2003. The implication is that Powell may have diseminated info from this report to Bush.
Now, before you start jumping up and down screaming "It was Bush! It was Bush!", think again and realize that it is highly unlikely Bush personally picked up the phone and called Novak. It's far more likely that he told someone else to make sure the involvement of Wilson's wife got out to the public. The obvious bad news is that this report provides for the possibility that someone high up might know "wife" without knowing "undercover operative".
This does not in any way clear Novak, however. Josh Marshall analyzed last year that Novak's use of the word "operative" to mean "undercover agent" was 100% consistent. Although this point is unlikely to sway a grand jury to an indictment, the fact that Novak was contacted by CIA and asked not to reveal Plame's identity should do some swaying.
2. "Though most lawyers thought the investigation was nearly complete, sources say Fitzgerald has recently recalled witnesses before the grand jury—apparently to ask about issues raised by a new Senate intelligence committee report that seemed to contradict some of Wilson's public statements about Plame's role in his trip to Niger."
In the face of a recent barrage of commentary that Plame's involvement in Wilson's trip is somehow supposed to make outing her acceptable, many people pointed out that the issue was wholly irrelevant from a legal standpoint. Surely Fitzgerald would not be swayed by these clever sounding but erroneous arguments? Well, perhaps not.
The only real good news in this article is that virtually every item of information and analysis in it comes from anonymous "sources". Perhaps these unnamed sources are trying to get ahead of any Powell testimony buzz.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)