Ron Paul, racist?

The blogosphere brouhaha of the day is a New Republic report on Ron Paul, in which they comb through his old newsletters and come across some surprising articles. Some choice excerpts are here. My excerpts from the excerpts:

This 1978 newsletter says the Trilateral Commission is "no longer known only by those who are knowledgeable about international conspiracies, but is routinely mentioned in the daily news."

A 1986 newsletter names Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will as "two of our enemies" and notes their membership in the Trilateral Commission.

An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would be better alternatives--and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."

The January 1991 edition of the Political Report refers to King as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and a "flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate."

"A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided."

A January 1994 edition of the Survival Report states that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

If you want to look at PDFs of the newsletters in question, visit TNR's selections link and click on the red type in each example.

You'll see that I ignored some topics. That's because I'm not that concerned with the sections on Israel, secession and the Mises Institute; I can see principled explanations there.

Libertarians -- and Andrew Sullivan -- are dismayed. Reason Magazine got a comment from Ron Paul, whose campaign later issued a statement. The defense is notable for its blandness and lack of specificity, but the basic argument is that this was old news, and reflective of poor oversight on Paul's part, not racism.

Ron Paul supporters, of course, are apoplectic. Just read some of the comments under TNR's main piece. They do have one valid point: the timing of the piece was a bit precious, coming on the day of the New Hampshire primary. Sure, given that we're in primary season, just about any date will have some timing-related effect. But it wouldn't have killed TNR to publish it tomorrow or Thursday, giving Paul enough time to respond before the next primary.

So how much is smoke and how much is fire?

Let's start with the indisputable facts.

1. For decades, various newsletters went out with Ron Paul's name on them.

2. Some of the issues contained material that was far, far, far beyond the pale of being defensible.

3. Paul himself didn't always edit them, and it's unclear which articles, if any, he wrote himself.

4. In particular, Paul disowns the racist, homophobic issues of the early 1990s, which he said were written and edited by others while he was retired from politics. He accepts a "moral responsibility" for not paying closer attention to what was being said in his name.

5. It's also clear that the views expressed in the newsletter are not what he espouses now. Indeed, he flatly told Reason that he considers MLK a hero and spoke in support of Rosa Parks in a Congressional speech in 1999.

But there are troubling questions involved here.

1. I cannot imagine letting a publication be put out in my name without being aware of -- and concerned about -- its content. So if Paul is to be believed, we're talking about a truly stunning lack of oversight.

2. Paul says this is "old news." I'd be willing to dismiss the conspiracy stuff as too old to be relevant -- except that he continues to believe much of it today. The rest is too recent to simply dismiss. It may indeed not reflect his views, or at least his views today, but they're recent enough to require at least some explanation.

3. The "poor oversight" argument would be more persuasive if we were talking about one bad issue or an article here or there. But I bolded the dates in the excerpts above for a reason. Here's how the categories break down:

Conspiracy theories: 1978-present.

Racism: 1990-92.

Homophobia:1990-94.

Militia movement:1992-95.

These things went on for years. Is it possible to be that completely out of touch with a publication bearing your name?

4. Even if we (rather charitably) accept Paul's claim that he was totally uninvolved with the newsletters and never even read them, we come to the question of who Paul entrusted to edit and publish them. I don't see how he would have consented to let someone use his name unless he knew that person and felt they would reflect his own philosophy more often than not. It seems to me that he must have known the political views of the editor, if not the writers. For one thing, a person capable of publishing some of the newsletters TNR discusses could not hide their extremist views very well or for very long. Indeed, the editor presumably had no desire to hide them, seeing as how he or she volunteered to print them up in a newsletter and mail them off to subscribers.

So the explanation that Ron Paul owes us is severalfold:

1. Did the writings reflect your views?

2. Did you ever read the newsletters published in your name?

3. Why did you lend your name to publications you totally disagree with?

4. How did you pick the editors, publishers or writers of these publications?

5. Who were the editors and writers involved, and do you still associate with them today?

For what it's worth, while I think Paul is a conspiracy-minded extreme conservative from the nutty end of the libertarian spectrum, I never had him pegged for a racist. I'm willing to believe that the newsletters do not reflect his personal views. But he then must explain why and how he put his name on the publication containing such trash.

Update: Stubborn Facts has some cogent commentary.

Ron Paul, politics, midtopia

Libby v. Rich

There's a hue and a cry in certain parts of the polity over the Congressional interest in President Bush's commutation of Lewis Libby's jail sentence. The basic theme: Libby deserved a pardon, not just a commutation, and Bush's action was clearly on the up-and-up. So Congress shouldn't investigate the matter, and if they do Bush should claim executive privilege and tell them to sod off.

Oh, and there are the claims of hypocrisy, seeing as how Clinton's rash of last-minute pardons barely raised any Democratic eyebrows.

That last charge has a ring of truth to it. Democrats often are loath to criticize a Democratic president, just as Republicans often are loath to criticize a Republican. They tend to express their opposition through lack of support, not active criticism. It's why divided government is a generally a good thing: neither party can be trusted to police itself.

That said, Clinton's pardons drew bipartisan criticism -- particularly his pardon of Marc Rich, which hardly anybody defended. Likewise, even many Libby sympathizers think Bush was wrong to completely eliminate his jail term.

Starting with that similarity, let's compare the Libby case with the Rich case and see where we end up.

Bush: Commuted the sentence of a man convicted of lying to investigators looking into possible illegal actions in the White House, raising suspicions of a coverup and a commutation based on connections, not the facts of the case.
Clinton: Pardoned a fugitive whose wife was a major Democratic donor, raising suspicions of a "pardons for cash" deal and pardon based on connections, not the facts of the case.

Bush: Commuted Libby's sentence without consulting the Justice Department, the prosecutor in the case or going through normal channels.
Clinton: Pardoned Rich without consulting the Justice Department, the prosecutor in the case or going through normal channels.

Bush: Has claimed executive privilege to prevent subpoenaing of aides and documents.
Clinton: Waived executive privilege, allowing Congressional investigators to subpoena aides and documents.

Bush: Nearly silent on his reasoning for the commutation.
Clinton: Wrote a New York Times op-ed piece defending his pardon.

Bush: Faces the prospect of multiple hearings and press conferences from Congress over the commutation.
Clinton: Endured multiple Congressional hearings and press conferences over the pardon, culminating in a lengthy report from the House subcommittee chaired by Rep. Dan Burton.

Bush: No special prosecutor -- yet.
Clinton: Endured an investigation from a special prosecutor, first Mary Jo White and then the ubiquitous James Comey, who eventually closed all the probes without seeking an indictment.

So what we have today is a Democratic Congress acting almost exactly like a Republican Congress did in 2001.

I had and have no problem with the Republican investigations of the Rich pardon. The special prosecutor was a little over the top, but the hearings and criticism were well-deserved. It was yet another personal low point for Clinton in an administration that had many of them. It was yet one more example of Clinton's split personality -- so questionable personally, but so successful and popular on a policy and political level.

Similarly, though, I have no problem with the Democratic investigations of the Libby commutation. And I think Bush should follow Clinton's example and waive privilege in this case.

Bush himself, by the way, is laudably (if wrongly) consistent in this matter. He criticized the pardon in 2001, but didn't call for an investigation, saying Clinton had the right to do it. He later said it was "time to move on" -- partly out of fear that the continuing probes would hamper passage of his own political agenda. Bush's other main motive: a desire to preserve and expand the power of the executive branch, something not helped by a Congress questioning an enumerated Constitutional power.

Bush, Clinton, Marc Rich, Libby, politics, midtopia

Ellison, conspiracies and overreaction

Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison -- the Minneapolis Democrat who is the nation's first Muslim congressman -- said something stupid Sunday.

On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."

Sorry, Keith. Saying something and then trying to disclaim it is not only intellectually discreditable -- it's not enough to keep you from being labeled a nutball on this point.

And what he was saying was dumb in and of itself. The Reichstag fire is an obvious parallel if you believe 9/11 was an inside job -- even if it's a parallel that fails on some key details. But it's irresponsible to give political and intellectual comfort to 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Ellison could argue that he wasn't saying 9/11 was an inside job, only noting that the political effect of the WTC attack was similar to the effect of the Reichstag fire. Even if you accept that explanation, his words were inexcusably unclear on that point. A casual reading would lead a reasonable observer to conclude he does, indeed, think 9/11 was an inside job.

But reaction to Ellison's words demonstrate that nutballs on the other side of the ledger can actually make their own side come off worse for the encounter, even when dealing with such an easy target as the above.

Gary Gross at Let Freedom Ring (LFR), for example -- a semi-prominent member of the conservative blogosphere, with an average of 175 hits a day or so.

Gross' post notes the "scary" similarity between Ellison's use of the Reichstag metaphor and an earlier reference by Abdul Alim Musa, an American black Muslim who supports the Iranian government and is fairly radical, albeit in a nonviolent way.

Except that the use of the Reichstag metaphor is not even remotely surprising. As I noted above, it's an obvious historical reference to make if you want to suggest that the WTC was an inside job perpetrated for political reasons. The fact that two disparate sources refer to it is no more scary than any other mention of common referents. If Alim Musa said "It's raining cats and dogs", would anyone remark on the "scary" fact that many other Americans have used the exact same words?

Gross then segues into his second logical flaw, a comparison of Musa and CAIR's views on Osama bin Laden's role in 9/11. Musa flatly denied bin Laden's role. CAIR (a Muslim advocacy group) simply said (immediately after 9/11) that "if bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him." In Gross' world, that constitutes a "denial" by CAIR that bin Laden was involved -- at least until they were "shamed" into admitting it a couple of months later.

For logical flaw #3, Gross quotes Musa defending Hamas, then quotes CAIR criticizing the closing of a Muslim charity that the administration said supported Hamas. Except that CAIR does not express support for Hamas; it disputes the allegation that the charity supports Hamas militants.

Having made three flawed comparisons, Gross then uses logical flaw #4 to tie it all together with what he apparently thinks is a political version of the transitive property in mathematics:

1. Ellison (remember Ellison? This is a post about Ellison) equals Musa;

2. Musa equals CAIR;

3. Ergo, Ellison equals CAIR.

Except that his definition of "equal to" works something like this:

1. I don't like Bush;

2. Osama bin Laden doesn't like Bush.

3. Therefore, I agree with everything OBL does and says.

That's stupid enough; but Gross takes it one ludicrous degree further, akin to this:

4. OBL speaks Arabic;

5. Lots of Arabs speak Arabic;

6. Therefore, I speak Arabic (because of my connection to them through my supposed total agreement with OBL)

I assure you, I do not speak Arabic. And Gross' post reflects a disregard for facts and logic more breathtaking than anything Ellison said.

That doesn't excuse Ellison, who has a greater responsibility to reason thanks to his seat in Congress. He should make a clear statement on his position regarding 9/11, and stop giving aid and comfort to conspiracy theorists.

Reichstag, terrorism, 9-11, Ellison, politics, midtopia

Bush the unhinged?

We're starting to see various "could be true, might not" stories being floated from various quarters, with one thing in common: Bush is losing it, and he's alienating Republicans while doing so. And they're not coming from DailyKos or Moveon.org.

First, in a column in the Dallas Morning News, columnist Georgie Ann Geyer reports the following:

But by all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness.

Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."

A vivid picture, and it sounds eerily similar to this one from a few weeks back (indeed, it's possible they're describing the same event):

we're hearing that some big money players up from Texas recently paid a visit to their friend in the White House. The story goes that they got out exactly one question, and the rest of the meeting consisted of The President in an extended whine, a rant, actually, about no one understands him, the critics are all messed up, if only people would see what he's doing things would be OK...etc., etc.

This is called a "bunker mentality" and it's not attractive when a friend does it. When the friend is the President of the United States, it can be downright dangerous. Apparently the Texas friends were suitably appalled, hence the story now in circulation.

Note, however, another similarity between the two: the allegations are anonymously sourced and entirely uncorroborated.

Then there's this little doozy from the Washington Times:

The Republican National Committee, hit by a grass-roots donors' rebellion over President Bush's immigration policy, has fired all 65 of its telephone solicitors....

The solicitors were indeed fired, that much is true. But take this with a huge grain of salt, because it's anonymously sourced, the RNC denies it, and the Washington Times is not above little hit jobs like this on policies it doesn't like.

Are the stories true? It's impossible to tell, so unless some confirmation pops up the rational answer is "no." But a lot of people -- not all of them Bush haters -- will readily believe them because they're plausible. Bush's immigration policy isn't popular with a significant element of his base. Bush's Iraq misadventure has left him increasingly isolated and at odds with public opinion. The stories are appealing precisely because they're plausible.

But speaking as a frequent Bush critic, let's stick to provable facts. There are enough of those to work with; no sense in trafficking in rumor on top of it. Doing so is what gives rise to conspiracy theories and urban legends, and we have quite enough of those already.

Update: Mary Katharine Ham has a friend who lived the RNC donation story -- from the donor side.

Bush, politics, midtopia

The return of the vast right-wing conspiracy

Hillary revives an old favorite.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday described past Republican political malfeasance in New Hampshire as evidence of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy." Clinton's barbed comments revived a term she coined for the partisan plotting during her husband's presidential tenure and echoed remarks she made last weekend in New Hampshire, which holds the nation's first primary.

I actually had some sympathy for this claim the first time around, when it was obvious that certain conservative elements were going all out to dig up dirt on and demonize the Clintons through efforts such as the Arkansas Project. It was not policy disagreement; it was an effort to destroy them politically.

But even then it had a vaguely paranoid air to it. Address specifics? Fine. Whine that everyone is out to get you? Not such a wise move, even if its partly true.

But I just don't get bringing it up now, when the right is in disarray, the Democrats have recaptured Congress and the Bush administration is enjoying approval ratings normally reserved for Communists and animal abusers. The base loves it, of course; but it plays poorly in the broader electorate, and there's really no way to make sure the message is only heard by the faithful.

Especially when the examples she cites involve Republicans being convicted of bad behavior. It's hard to claim a conspiracy when the perps are quickly brought to justice.

Maybe this is an attempt to get out in front of the venom that Hillary is sure to encounter because she's such a polarizing figure for conservatives. But I don't think it'll work. A better response would be to use the same tools -- the media, blogs, the Internet -- to counter such attacks. Unless Hillary believes that such attacks will be hard to discredit head on and so must be dismissed en masse.

Let's hope the 2008 campaign is not a repeat of the ugliness of the mid-1990s.

Clinton, politics, midtopia

Another non-scandal

First there was the Starkist stock deal. Then there was "Obama in a madrassa."

Now the latest non-scandal dreamed up by Republicans is "Pelosi One."

At issue is what kind of aircraft the House speaker — second in line to the presidency — should use to get around the country. For years, speakers flew commercial like everybody else in Congress. But after the Sept. 11 attacks, it was deemed that anyone two heartbeats away from the presidency warranted a military jet.

Until now, the only speaker affected was Republican J. Dennis Hastert, who commuted to his Illinois district in small executive-style military jets.

But those aircraft require ideal weather conditions to make the cross-country trip without stopping to refuel.

The main aircraft that can make the trip nonstop is a modified Boeing 757 that is much larger than the plane Hastert flew in. Hence the attempts to paint Pelosi as "demanding" a plane fit for a king.

Putting aside the fact that Vice President Cheney gets around in a similar plane, let's agree that a 757 is a bit much for one person to have, even if that person is third in line for the presidency. Surely there are smaller planes that can fly cross-country without having to refuel.

Still, there's no "there" there. The negotiations didn't involve Pelosi or her office; they were conducted entirely by the House sergeant-at-arms. Pelosi merely said that she would like to be able to make the trip without refueling, and if there was no plane available with that capability she preferred to fly commercial instead.

Now, one can certainly speculate that she was free to say all that, knowing that only one plane was big enough for the job and that her security people wouldn't let her fly commercial. But there's simply no evidence to suggest that that's what happened.

Other Republican attempts to make hay out of this were simply stupid. They claim Pelosi wants the bigger plane so she can fly family and supporters around. This ignores the fact that Pelosi recently led the House in passing new ethics rule that forbid most such practices, and that in addition the military planes come with rather strict restrictions of their own, including severe limits on family travel -- which must then be reimbursed.

Pelosi did herself no favors by publicly speculating that the White House or the Pentagon were behind the brouhaha.

Pelosi said news reports suggesting that she seeks a lavish jet suggest a "misrepresentation that could only be coming from the administration. One would wonder why the practice deemed to be necessary from a security standpoint would be mischaracterized in the press. I know that it's not coming from the president, because he impressed upon me the amount of security I need to have."

Turns out she was right about the president. Today the White House dismissed the whole thing.

"This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.... (he) said the negotiations over Pelosi's transport have been conducted solely by the House sergeant-at-arms and the Pentagon, with no direct involvement by the speaker or her office -- or the White House.

When the White House comes to the defense of the Democratic Speaker of the House, you can be pretty sure there's nothing there.

As I noted in the "Obama madrassa" post, a disheartening pattern is starting to become clear. Unfounded rumors and alleged scandals emerge from conservative sources -- with the Washington Times and its online magazine, Insight, playing a prominent role. Those rumors and scandals are then picked up and flogged as fact by right-wing blogs, commentators, columnists and sometimes -- as in this case -- elected officials, notably Roy Blunt and Patrick McHenry.

And for what? Pathetic attempts to (falsely) smear ranking Democrats. Pelosi, in particular, seems to attract more than her share of wrath.

It's something I remember from the Clinton days, when the Richard Mellon Scaife-funded "Arkansas project" manufactured dirt on the Clintons. It mostly disappeared after Bush won the White House. With Democrats out of the majority everywhere, NewsMax and WorldNetDaily were marginalized and conservatives seemed content to simply toss names and insults at Democrats. It was Democrats who engaged in conspiracy theories and trumped-up spin -- though I don't remember it being to this degree of simply making stuff up.

Now that the Democrats are back in power, parts of the Republican world are reverting to very bad habits. I only hope that such crude smear tactics serve more to discredit those who use them -- on both sides of the aisle -- then to hurt their targets. We deserve better discourse than this.

Blunt, a member of the Republican leadership, should be especially ashamed of himself.

ethics, Pelosi, politics, midtopia

Truth or dare

Republican Rep. Tom Davis released a report (pdf) a couple of weeks ago slamming the Justice Department's handling of the Sandy Berger case.

"My staff’s investigation reveals that President Clinton’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger compromised national security much more than originally disclosed," Davis said. "It is now also clear that Mr. Berger was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience."

Well, he doesn't really come up with much new information. And at least he doesn't accuse Berger of attempting a cover-up, though he intimates such might have occurred.

His major action point (signed by every Congressional Republican): Make Berger take the polygraph test he agreed to as part of his 2005 plea bargain.

That's a fairly pointless requirement, since polygraphs are unreliable. And the failing here is the Justice Department's, not Berger's. But okay: if Berger agreed to take such a test, he must. Obviously.

The issue here is not holding Berger to the terms of the agreement; it's what will be done with the polygraph results if they are made public.

At best, such tests are only 70 percent or 80 percent reliable, and that's when administered by a skilled technician to a relatively normal subject. Knowledgable subjects can lie and get away with it; anxious subjects will generate lots of false positives. And if the technician isn't top-notch, all bets are off.

So let's say Berger flunks the test. Does that mean he stole other documents or is guilty of a cover-up? Maybe. He could just be part of the unlucky 20 percent. Or it could mean he was nervous.

If he passes the test does that mean he's innocent? No. Maybe he was a cool villain and spoofed the test. Maybe he just got lucky. Maybe the technician was incompetent.

Polygraphs can be useful tools for helping focus an investigation: if a subject routinely fails on certain topics, then those topics might be worthy of further investigative scrutiny. But a polygraph test in and of itself is too unreliable to tell us anything useful about guilt or innocence. In partisan discourse, though, such nuances will be lost. No matter what the result of the test, Berger is screwed.

He gets limited sympathy from me on that score: he stole classified documents, after all. But let's not see this particular move for more than what it is: a partisan attempt to keep a Democratic scandal alive.

security, Berger, politics, midtopia

Another made-up scandal

I've been ignoring this one for a couple of days, but hot on the heels of the "Paul Pelosi owns Del Monte stock" fabrication, we get a twofer: accusations that Barack Obama was raised Muslim -- and that the accuser is Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The dual claims were raised in an unsigned, anonymously sourced article in Insight Magazine, a publication of the Moonie-owned Washington Times that was so unsuccessful as an actual magazine that it went online-only a couple of years ago.

An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.

"He was a Muslim, but he concealed it," the source said. "His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign." Sources said the background check (was) conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton.

Let's note that even if the claim were true, the writer is suggesting that attending a madrassa between the ages of 6 and 10 somehow makes one a fundamentalist Islamist and terror supporter -- never mind that Obama has been a Christian for his entire adult life.

Fox News picked up the story repeatedly, first on "Fox and Friends" and later John Gibson, who had the flair to bring on a Republican strategist to discuss the issue -- who promptly said the effort could be a "despicable act by an absolutely ruthless Clinton political machine."

But the story isn't true. CNN actually sent a reporter to Indonesia to visit the school. Turns out that while the student body is predominantly Muslim -- hardly a surprise, because so is Indonesia -- it's a secular, public school with a mixed population and no religious curriculum.

That didn't stop the usual right-wing suspects from spreading the fake news -- from the Freepers to, again, Rush Limbaugh.

And Insight Magazine itself? Its response to CNN's story was a classic duck -- "We didn't say it -- we simply reported that Hillary's people were saying it." Well, actually, it appears you just made it up. How morally reptilian.

For their part, the Clinton campaign denies any involvement and Obama ripped Fox and Insight a new one.

And in any case, this whole thing fails the logic test. Why would Clinton's people even be talking to a nutrag like Insight? Even if Clinton wanted to smear Obama, why would she choose a little-known partisan website to do so? Further, Clinton is presumably trying to weaken Obama in the Democratic primary. What part of this story would do so? I just don't see Democratic primary voters giving a rat's ass that Obama spent a few of hs younger years at a Muslim school.

On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for an amoral conservative publication to run such a story. Even if the specific accusation is debunked, it reminds voters that Obama has a Muslim background and quitely reinforces the idea that Hillary Clinton is evil, even if she can't actually be traced to this particular brouhaha. Tada! Both Democratic frontrunners tarred.

If Insight has any actual evidence to back up their story, now would be the time to provide it.

Coupled with the Pelosi smear, I think we're seeing a resurgence of the bad old days of conservative commentary, one marked by conspiracy theories and rumor-trafficking. Such fare occurs on both the left and the right, of course, most notably the left's fascination with Karl Rove and the belief that Bush controls oil prices. But it is usually most marked in the side that is currently out of power. What is disheartening is that it has taken just two months of minority status for the right wing's old habits to emerge.

Shame on them, and shame on conservative commentators and media outlets for their unquestioning acceptance of complete rubbish.

Update: John Gibson remains cartoonishly unrepentant. Just for example, Gibson assumes that the CNN correspondent involved is Indonesian, "probably went to the same madrassa", and thus is probably lying. Except that if he had bothered to actually read the CNN story, he would have known that CNN sent John Vause, an Australian, from their Beijing bureau. Idiot.

ethics, Clinton, Obama, politics, midtopia

Sandy Berger update

Having now read the redacted Inspector General report, including the summary of the Berger interview, a few more points of contention are cleared up.

Note that my purpose here is not to defend Berger; it's to debunk the conspiracy theories that he was covering something up related to the Millennium plots.

Berger visited the Archives four times. Once in preparation for a thorough document review, and then once for each of three separate document releases.

1. Berger was given preferential treatment, being allowed to review the documents in an Archive employee's office instead of in a secure reading room. He was allowed to bring in his cell phone and a briefcase, and was occasionally left alone with the documents.

2. Berger, who owned a consultancy, received time-sensitive work-related calls at the employee's phone, but never used his cell phone (and never told anyone his cell phone wasn't working) as had been alleged.

3. On his first visit, in May 2002, Berger had access to some original documents. The most sensitive were numbered and would be missed if taken, and he was never left alone with them. Still, the Archive cannot say for sure he didn't take anything, in part because a numbered document might have several pages, and the pages themselves weren't necessarily numbered. However, Archive records indicate Berger was not shown any Millennium Attack After Action Review (MAAAR) documents during his May visit.

4. On his second visit, in July 2003, Berger again had access to some original documents. He said he removed some of his notes but no documents, but there's no way to prove he didn't take something.

5. On his third visit, in September 2003, Berger had access to numbered originals of the most sensitive documents and copies of everything else. He couldn't have taken a unique document even if he wanted to, and the Archive says he didn't. He took a fax copy of what he thought was the final version of the MAAAR, plus some more notes.

6. On his fourth visit, in October 2003, he had access solely to copies, including printouts of e-mails. He found another copy of the MAAAR, this one classified differently from the one he had taken on his previous visit. He didn't know why it was classified differently, and he was told the only difference between the two versions involved money, not anything substantive. Nonetheless, he took it so he could compare the two versions later. Later he found yet a third version of the MAAAR and took that, too.

7. Notably, on this visit an Archive employee told him that he had returned a folder missing a document -- and provided Berger with another copy of it. This demonstrates that the Archive had copies of what Berger was reviewing. Berger, for some reason, took that copy, too -- for a total of four. He also took most of his notes.

8. The four documents Berger took were printouts of e-mails, with the MAAAR as an attachment. He never had access to the original MAAAR.

9. There were not any handwritten notes on the documents Berger is known to have removed.

10. Berger didn't consider the MAAAR very sensitive, despite its classification, which is why he was so cavalier about taking it.

So could Berger have taken original documents? Yes, in his first two visits. But his opportunities were limited, and he had no access to original copies of the MAAAR. All that he is known to have taken is faxes and printed e-mails, the originals of which remain in Archive hands.

The most reasonable explanation remains the simplest: that Berger didn't consider the MAAAR sensitive, and considered himself somewhat above the law, since he had written many of the documents in question. So he took them. And got caught.

Berger, security, politics, midtopia

Closing the books on Sandy Berger

The pathetic story of Sandy Berger appears to finally be playing out. A report by the National Archive's inspector general lays out his findings. I can't find an actual copy of the report, so I'm relying on various stories describing it.

Here is apparently what happened.

Berger is known to have taken five copies of the same classified document, relating to the Clinton administration's response to various terrorist threats linked to the new Millenium -- the so-called "Millenium plots." The copies contained slight variations, reflecting the input of various agencies, but were substantially the same.

The Archive has consistently asserted that he took only copies, and that they retain the originals of everything in question.

He also smuggled out notes he had taken, in violation of Archive procedures that require such notes to be checked.

It's possible that he took other documents in previous visits. But that remains unknown, partly because of the deference ("special treatment", as the report calls it) that Berger received, as well as the rather disorganized document-tracking system used by the Archives. Berger denies it, and nobody has accused him of doing so.

He said -- and the report agrees -- that he took them to help him prepare for upcoming testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

When he got back to his office, he discovered that three of the documents were identical and destroyed them.

When Archive employees later confronted him about the thefts, he first denied taking them, then admitted he had done so. He returned the remaining copies as well as his notes.

He was later fined $50,000, sentenced to 100 hours of community service and had his security clearance revoked. The relatively light sentence reflected the fact that it was a plea deal and that his motive was banal, his methods comical and the damage light to nonexistent.

One can argue that stealing classified documents deserves a harsher penalty. But even setting aside the sad details of this particular case, the reality is that a trial could have compromised national security and so the government's leverage was limited.

Without excusing Berger's actions -- he committed a crime; he deserved to be caught and punished -- it's also worth noting what the report apparently didn't say: in short, it didn't corroborate most of the lurid speculations and rumors surrounding the case.

1. Berger did not stuff documents in his socks or down his pants.

2. There's no indication that the stolen copies contained margin notes or other handwritten additions that the originals did not have -- whereas there are various authoritative statements that they did not. As the Wall Street Journal, of all sources, pointed out in 2005.

In short, the idea that there was some sort of coverup or conspiracy lacks any evidence or sense whatsoever. What kind of conspiracy destroys copies of documents?

Berger broke the law; he was caught; he's being punished. As it should be.

I'll post a link to the full report if I ever find one. The AP got the report through a Freedom of Information Act request; surely it won't be long before the text finds its way online.

Update: Here's the full (though heavily redacted) report (pdf).

Berger, politics, midtopia

Ken Lay dies...

... and I try, and fail, to care.

I'm sure his mother loved him. And I certainly didn't wish him dead. But I save my sympathy for those who deserve it. Other than that, I tend to share the view of Andrew Cohen:

I think the company's demise ruined him, financially and otherwise, and eventually killed him. What more punishment does anyone want above that? Instead of dying a slow death in some tax-funded prison world, Lay died a quick death on the eve of his federal sentencing. As sad as any man's death is, Lay's death is not an entirely unfitting one given his personality, his role at Enron, and his place in the history of corporate America.

When I first heard the news, I jokingly told my wife, "he died because he knew too much."

Little did I know that the conspiracy theorists had gotten there ahead of me.

And then there are the people who think he was some sort of hero. I kid you not.

How many more innocent people will moonbats railroad into jail? How many more will they drive into stress-induced death?

Kenneth Lay is the Socrates of our times, the St. Thomas More of the early 21st century. His innocence transforms his loss into martyrdom; the blood of martyrs demands retribution. The moonbat media moguls that hounded this poor man’s every waking moment must suffer as he suffered, in jail or Guantanamo. It is the only way to restore justice to America.

Uh, sure, dude. Put down the mouse and back away from the keyboard. Slowly.

Ken Lay, Enron, politics, midtopia

Did Bush let Zarqawi live for political reasons?

We start off Monday with a potentially explosive report: Confirmation from a CIA official of long-standing reports that George Bush held off on trying to nail al-Zarqawi back in 2002.

The revelation came on an Australian TV show called "Four Corners." The source? Former CIA man Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA's Osama bin Laden effort for six years. He's been talking about the war on terror for a while now. His words:

Mr Scheuer claims that a July 2002 plan to destroy the camp lapsed because "it was more important not to give the Europeans the impression we were gunslingers".

"Mr Bush had Zarqawi in his sights almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq and he didn't shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq," he told Four Corners.

"Almost every day we sent a package to the White House that had overhead imagery of the house he was staying in. It was a terrorist training camp . . . experimenting with ricin and anthrax . . . any collateral damage there would have been terrorists."

The "not wanting to cheese off the French" explanation seems quite weak, given Bush's general indifference to French opinion. But that could well be what the administration told the CIA.

A seemingly more plausible reason, and what makes this confirmation potentially important, is this:

During the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi's presence in the north of the country was used by US officials to link Saddam Hussein to terrorism.

In other words, Zarqawi's continued presence was convenient in helping to build the case for war against Iraq. Never mind that the camp was in Kurdish-controlled territory and thus well outside the part of Iraq that Saddam controlled.

If Bush really held off nailing a known terrorist for political reasons, he has a lot of explaining to do. Maybe he didn't consider Zarqawi and his group important; but then he shouldn't have been citing the group as evidence of Saddam's support for terror.

For more viewpoints, the story is being heavily discussed on Kevin Drum's blog at the Washington Monthly.

Zarqawi, Bush, Iraq, terrorism, politics, midtopia