Also Also

And So, Mr. Bush, I See the Tables Have Turned

Do you remember the guy who was wanted for murder and pinned under the thumb of the US military in Najaf a couple years ago? He was the hothead cleric we all wanted to avoid, and we were hoping that Sistani could keep him at heel enough to do the sensible thing and get someone like Allawi or maybe even Chalabi in there and running things like our good like patronage bitch. But whatever we did, we certainly didn't want this guy anywhere near the rudders of power in Iraq when we were done with it:

Pressure has been mounting on the Shiites to replace al-Jaafari, whom critics accuse of failing to curb sectarian tension that has soared since the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra, which triggered a wave of reprisal attacks against Sunnis.

...

The Shiites, however, are maneuvering carefully because they suspect the Sunnis and Kurds want more of a role in the new government than they would be entitled to based on their showing in the December election.

Sumaidaie, a Sunni Arab, told CNN that while "electoral results could not be ignored totally," it may be necessary to allocate positions "to make sure that everybody's on board."

Al-Jaafari won the nomination in a vote last February by Shiite lawmakers due to strong support from radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The mercurial young cleric, who heads the dreaded Mahdi Army militia, has vowed to stand behind the incumbent.

With little progress on the political front, Iraq's slide toward chaos continued. [emph all me, baby]

If I have this right, the primary thing that is keeping our President from backing out of Iraq like a Northside alderman from a Southside hooker's apartment is Moqtada al-Sadr. And where are Allawi and Chalabi? Not involved with anyone who matters for anything, I can tell you that.

The project for Iraq has been run like an Icelandic creole joint.

Posting Stalled--Weekend Ramble-- Reading Recommendation

Gregory Djerejian, the author of Belgravia Dispatch, has long been a favorite blogger in the AlsoRight blogroll.  There's about a half dozen links here to blogs which better represent my "right of center, anti-neoconservative, counter-intuitive" positions, all of them from the paleocon Christian community.  But those friendly folks seem convinced all the world's woes are the fault of liberals (who've been basically powerless for five years, making global destruction at their fiendish hands an enormous improbability).  So, demonizing the weak is something I usually avoid, and frankly, detest. 

Djerejian, on the other hand, writes with concern, insight and balance; and generally hasn't the time or space for anger and name calling.  I wish I was equally restrained.  I occasionally disagree with him, but I always appreciate his willingness to address objections before they come.  He writes long detailed posts in order to do so, and considers the issues from multiple angles.  It's refreshing.  I try to do the same, time permitting.

Which is why regularly scheduled posting, from me anyway, will be temporarily stalled.  There's three topics I'm trying to cover.  None of them can be addressed in brief posts, and my tyrannical daughter is ruling the realm this weekend. 

The first topic in the hopper has a working title:  "The Good The Bad and The Ugly-- Fear and Loathing on the Mexican Border."  And it would be best handled by Sergio Leone and Hunter S. Thompson, but you're stuck with me.  The modern day spaghetti western just south of our border deserves a dose of gonzo journalism, which I haven't the talent to emulate.  So a long detailed post on the barbarity will have to do, in good time.  If you've followed my associated commentary, what's coming is most distressing. 

Another topic, which has been alluded to, from time to time, since the conception of this blog, is the Hunt for bin Laden.  A pastime of mine.  You didn't think I was headed to Uganda just for the kids, did you?  That's a big reward!

It's a worthless topic without dispelling the common myths, and I want to remain reality-based.  So, my thoughts go back to 1982 Beirut (therapy for terrorists according to some), get very involved from there, and may someday be edited down to a readable essay.  For now, I recommend The Dread Pirate Bin Laden for ideas I've long endorsed for a serious war on terror.

Finally, I'm studying answers to the question:  "Should we pull out of Iraq?"  This one's getting plenty of attention lately, with officials in both the US and Iraq endorsing withdrawal.  They remain in the minority, and after much reading and consideration, I'm undecided but determined to discuss the possibilities (or lack thereof) in detail.  Djerejian sides with Rumsfeld, as does Torrid, I believe.  So does Juan Cole, who predicts Armageddon if we pull out and aren't saved by the UN.  Don't tell the theocons, or they will demand withdrawal. 

Back to Djerejian and recommending his Belgravia Dispatch (BD).  Currently, he's seeking right leaning names for a list he calls the Conscience Caucus:  Conservatives opposed to torture.  It's disturbing such a list needs to be developed, but give the comments under that post a read.  Really disturbing.  I certainly qualify for the caucus, feel guilty for not addressing the topic more often, and find it astonishing the Left hasn't made serious "moral values" headway in exposing a very unfortunate right wing lapse in American ideals.  Torture is a deadly serious topic that BD has handled indepth, with honor and decency.  If that post isn't gut wrenching and slapping his readers into reality, then maybe Billmon's right and many are just beyond redemption.  Too many. 

Another current post on Troop Morale is a bullseye, but I won't hold my breath for this administration to follow sound advice.  Finally, he's promising (like me) a detailed analysis of the increasing rattling of sabers directed at Syria.  I notice he has Josh Landis in the blogroll, and I hope he considers these comments in his analysis. 

So, why did I write such a long post while complaining about not being able to write long posts?  Because this one was easy, took less than an hour, and those other posts I mentioned require too much thinking for someone with a six year old climbing on his head.  Also also because I know many of our readers from the Left are fed up with the onslaught (understandably so), and I thought BD would be a breath of fresh air, an appeaser. 

I have a question related to sending progressives to BD.  It's been on my mind for a couple weeks.   

Is it just me, or is the Right far more interested in foreign policy than the Left?

I'm well aware of Juan Cole, Marc Lynch, Praktike (BD's good spirited nemesis) and several others, but I bet if we lined up the top 200 blogs left vs. right, we'd see a remarkable disparity favoring the Right in the attention given to foreign affairs.  I also wonder if this doesn't play heavily in presidential elections.  The Executive Branch is empowered to conduct foreign policy, and the extra attention alone may well be worth enough votes to change the outcome of our extremely tight national elections.  You know the idea:  Vote democrat locally, but republican nationally.  Could foreign policy have a major psychological influence in that?  I think so.  Should the Left be a little more attentive?  Obviously, but why isn't it?

Enjoy the links that aren't back to A2.  There may be a test later.  I'm going to teach this kid the proper way to use a slip 'n slide. 

-- Zap

Alternatives to Bolton

Barry Casselman has an opinion piece up in the Washington Times considering three alternatives to Bolton for UN Ambassador:

President Bush's nomination of John Bolton to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is now firmly stalled by Democrats in the Senate. I think Mr. Bolton should be approved, and the case against him is essentially without substance. Mr. Bolton may have been heavy-handed at times, but that is hardly an original sin in government circles or sufficient grounds to reject him. Nevertheless, the Democrats, led by Sen. Joe Biden, will not allow this nomination to come to an up-or-down vote (which Mr. Bolton would likely win with a few votes to spare).
What now?

I agree with Casselman that Bush likely has the votes to push Bolton through.  I also agree with Senator Biden.  Undisclosed information should be disclosed before any up or down vote.  I don't care if the information is disclosed to Congress upstairs and not shared with the general public.  There is reason to presume Bolton has been party to the neoconservative custom of philandering with intelligence.  The White House's unwillingness to comply is making observers more suspicious.  In the least, I'd like to know those with votes and the need to know have been placated. 

In this case, the White House shares equal burden in obstructing an up or down vote.  Those demanding a vote with no interest in the disclosure of pertinent information are domineering partisans, and I'm disappointed they're not nosey enough to want to see the information themselves.  That seems like the fun part of the job, and it is about accountability for them after all.  They are accountable for how they vote.  They should demand any and all related information. 

Some of the Democrats' tactics this past year have qualified as senseless obstruction, but not nearly to the level imputed, and certainly not in the case of the controversial Bolton.  More information, please, 0r we're back to Casselman's, "What now?"

There are two possible courses of action. One would be to make a recess appointment, as early as the first week of July, that would make Mr. Bolton the U.N. ambassador until January, 2007. Although this would infuriate Senate Democrats, it is probably the most likely outcome of this matter, considering the mood of both sides.

Right again.  I think he overstates the likely reaction of the Democrats though.  I think they'd fail to adequately play the victim's role, then slip this episode down the memory hole.  The GOP will probably do a better job of advertising it's victimization, beating their chests in triumph against all odds, and then celebrating both executive power and Bolton chasing the Ambassador from Latvia down the hall shortly after misfiring with his cell phone. 

But, Casselman identifies two possible courses of action.  The other being an alternate to Bolton.

Jeanne Kirkpatrick, the former U.N. ambassador, is 79.

No.  Bush isn't interested in a 79 year old, old school diplomat.  He seeks a hard charging neocon to rattle the cages and intimidate the institution into a more pro-American agenda. 

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has more interesting ideas and perspectives than perhaps any other conservative in America. No one can accuse him of not speaking directly and provocatively. He would definitely shake up the complacency at the United Nations. But Mr. Gingrich, 62, is planning to run for president in 2008, and has no history as a team player.

So why suggest him?  His run for president should be good entertainment though.

Rudy Boschwitz, 74, served two terms in the Senate, but until recently had not returned to public life following his 1996 defeat in his bid to regain his Senate seat. Earlier this year, Mr. Bush nominated Mr. Boschwitz to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. He was confirmed by the Senate 99-0, and subsequently distinguished himself in the six-week annual session in Switzerland.

The rest of the article evokes images of Notre Dame Stadium as Casselman chants, "Rudy!  Rudy!  Rudy!"  But mixed into the Rudy option is this:

Furthermore, I know that he does not seek this position, and would not approve of me writing about him in this column.

So basically, Casselman has written an article on Alternatives to Bolton without providing any compelling alternatives.  Nor does he detail the unlikelihood of there being a realistic chance of Bush seeking a new nominee.  About all he accomplished was providing me a resource to discuss the topic, which was nice of him. 

There are many fine conservatives interested in UN reform who could quickly pass the up or down vote.  But that's compromise team neocon will not willingly concede.  Bush is not going to lose Bolton without a fight; a vote or the recess appointment, which is a compromised solution easily spun to either party's advantage.  In light of recent GOP disappointments, struggles abroad, and sagging opinion polls, it's foolish to imagine Bush compromising with an alternative nomination.  He would earn respect from unexpected quarters if he did though.

-- Zap

DR CAFTA as Counterterrorism

If you followed the links in my post on the possible trouble brewing between the Minutemen and Latino gangs in Southern California, you may have been surprised by the international scope and political history of Mara Salvatrucha (aka MS 13), the most dangerous gang in America.

But Robert Clifford, head of the new national task force, says "no single law-enforcement action is really going to deal the type of blow" necessary to dismantle the gang. No one is more interested in busting up MS-13 than leaders of the Latino community, who live with the fear and fallout of the gang's savage actions.

MS-13 got started in Los Angeles in the 1980s by Salvadorans fleeing a civil war. Many of the kids grew up surrounded by violence. Del Hendrixson of Bajito Onda, a gang-outreach program, remembers an MS-13 member who recounted one of his earliest memories: guarding the family's crops at the age of 4, armed with a machete, alone at night. When he and others reached the mean streets of the L.A. ghetto, Mexican gangs preyed on them. The newcomers' response: to band together in a mara, or "posse," composed of salvatruchas, or "street-tough Salvadorans" (the "13" is a gang number associated with southern California). Over time, the gang's ranks grew, adding former paramilitaries with weapons training and a taste for atrocity. MS-13 eventually adopted a variety of rackets, from extortion to drug trafficking. When law enforcement cracked down and deported planeloads of members, the deportees quickly created MS-13 outposts in El Salvador and neighboring countries like Honduras and Guatemala.

(emph. mine)

In the scores of articles I've read regarding MS 13 over the years, the gang's "civil war" roots in El Salvador are often mentioned, but never detailed beyond the serious nature of it's paramilitary background and capability.  Perhaps it's because law enforcement is disinterested in the political.  Perhaps it's because noone wants to expose the strange fruit that ripened after Reagan's secret war.  But that's what we're dealing with.  Sandinistas and FMLN, their descendants and recruits, with clear memories and unhealed wounds from Negroponte's death squads. 

Records also show that a special intelligence unit (commonly referred to as a "death squad") of the Honduran armed forces, Battalion 3-16, trained by the CIA and the Argentine military, kidnapped, tortured and killed hundreds of people, including U.S. missionaries. Critics charge that Negroponte knew about these human rights violations and yet continued to collaborate with the Honduran military while lying to Congress.

Critics charge alot more than the records revealed. 

Many of these death squads hunted down leftist rebels and suspected supporters in the countryside, killing their victims, and occasionally wiping out whole villages. One well-known death squad that still operates currently in Central America is the El Salvadorian-based Sombra Negra ("Black Shadow" in Spanish).

In El Salvador, the death squads achieved notoriety for the murder of Archbishop Óscar Romero and the murders of four American nuns. This prompted great controversy and outrage in the U.S., because of the death squads' widely-alleged ties to El Salvador's U.S.-supported government.

Remember the heady days of Iran Contra?  While half the nation was apalled that we were doing business with Iran, and the other half was defending Reagan and Oliver North, I was stunned to hear of our involvement in the horrors of Central America (where I lived for part of my childhood and always promised to return).   

In 1987, CIA Station Chief, John Stockwell delivered this scalding accounting of America's activity abroad.  Read it for all the gory details; it's important background, and possibly Stockwell went over the top. 

For my purposes, just a few points.  Regardless if it was 10s of thousands or 100s of thousands murdered in the brutal manners detailed by Stockwell, the rejuvinated remnant, Mara Salvatrucha, must be profoundly anti-American.  Most studies estimate the gang's presence in the US between 10 and 20 thousand members.  I submit that that is a seriously low estimate.  Between 2000 and 2004 we deported over 20,000 criminals to Central America.  It's naive to believe, given the situation here and there, that a very high percentage of these deportees were not Mara Salvatrucha, which every current report suggests is growing faster than any other domestic gang.  As an aside, it's been reported that an MS 13 member's greatest fear is deportation, because  the government sponsored Sombra Negra, the Salvadoran death squad, is still active.  Some criminals have been executed upon arrival for having the wrong tattoo.  Meanwhile, many Central American officials have asked us to curtail the deportations because they exacerbate the problem there. 

Here MS 13 is classified as a gang.  In Central America it is also called a gang, but that seems like a flawed description.  In Central America the gang is estimated to have over 250,000 members, of which 40,000 are incarcerated.  At some point this organization should receive a status removed from our basic understanding of a gang.  Gangs have their internal politics, but they work on a profit motive, gangster capitalism.  America is the country they hate to love.  But MS 13 has other motives:

In recent weeks, authorities have made strides against MS-13: a gang leader accused of orchestrating a December bus bombing in Honduras that killed 28 people was arrested in Texas in February...

Another attack on a bus involved a group of men, triangulated around the blocked vehicle,  and opening fire with machine guns until all the passengers were dead.  This isn't gangster capitalism; these sort of attacks have a political message.  MS 13 is more than a gang, and it's reasonable to assume America is the country they love to hate.  It is a terrorist organization, and should be classified accordingly. 

Which is why this interesting angle on DR CAFTA made my cynical head spin.  CAFTA is about security:

Passage of CAFTA matters for reasons that have less to do with the price of beets in Montana and more with international terrorism, the projection of soft power, and the ominous trajectory of South American politics. [...]

Even today we are inclined to blanch at the idea that free trade agreements should be passed into law in order to accomplish things that have nothing to do with economics. But the Bush administration believes, at home and abroad, that everything has to do with economics. Zoellick: "Free markets, development, opportunity, and hope are the best weapons against poverty, disease, and tyranny." Bush: "By transforming our hemisphere into a powerful free trade area, we will promote democratic governance, human rights, and economic liberty for everyone."

I know, I know, this rhetoric is distasteful considering the mess in Iraq, but here we're talking about trade, not war, and in light of my above revelations...  Surely, this is just corporatist spin, right?

And the definition of enrichment goes far beyond mere trade. William Cohen, Clinton's defense secretary (and no Contra apologist), knows "the roots of democracy are not deep and [Central American] economies need to grow. In our own backyard we might have a breeding ground for terrorists." John Murphy, VP for Latin America at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, warns of a CAFTA defeat "that will be seen as a kick in the teeth to Latin America. And that will harm not just on trade but anti-terrorist and anti-narcotic efforts." [..]

The idea that we might have a national security imperative in ramming CAFTA through a recalcitrant Congress can only be reinforced by the following battery of scheduled meetings among the CAFTA nation leaders: International Relations Committee chairman Henry Hyde; House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security chairman Harold Rogers; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The DEFSEC is pushing a trade agreement?  I think this makes sense.  It's not a new angle to me (Capitalism should do the marching), but I admit to being blindsided by it, so I reserve the right to jump ship without notice. 

I have a well-read acquaintance who is convinced that we are engaged in the ultimate clash of civilizations, a war to the death with Islam and all things anti-American.  Oh, how I hate the effects of fear mongering.  But, this friend, while thinking the neocons see the big picture correctly, envisions a better approach to "calming the natives."  He thinks it should be economic and humanitarian.  Yeah, he's a Christian and he believes if you love your enemies you may have better luck with them.  I bet he'd like this approach to CAFTA.  It even has strict environmental regulations, and John Kerry is promising to patch it up for us. 

This is the second time in a week, I've found something to agree with in the GWOT.  I'll drink to that.

-- Zap

A Few Good Memos

Another British leak on sexed up war intel

Just as the U.S. media—-albeit a month late—-scramble to get on top of the so-called “Downing Street Memo,” the Sunday Times in London unveiled another leaked document which confirms and goes behind the message of the memo. Meanwhile, Walter Pincus of the Washington Post has a related, front-page report on Sunday.

“Ministers were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal,” the Sunday Times reports.

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Prime Minister Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier. The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

I have the feeling we have a new deep throat operating in London.  That the intelligence was manipulated in order to justify war in Iraq is a foregone conclusion to those with enough interest to honestly consider the charge and evidence.  Yet, the country has been almost collectively in denial of a scandal more repugnant than anything in memory.  Thanks to the Downing Street Memo and now the Cabinet Office Brief, it seems the nation may be kicking it's way out of denial and into anger.  If we're following the traditional pattern of coping with tragedy, anger will lead to bargaining, and those will be the two most important stages of the process. 

The flaccid school of invertebrates representing this country's loyal opposition have been no source of comfort to those of us bewildered by the scant concern of the emasculated Left.  The result of anger and bargaining is generally depression, and I hope it is a deep depression for everything neoconservative.  That will depend on the level of anger and severity of the bargaining.  I'd hate to see the country slip into acceptance like so many peasants in southern Italy accepted Mussolini. 

Hopefully, there's more to come, and the combined stench of it all will lead us through the harsh stages this scandal requires. 

I have this little vision forming with this second leak.  There's a courtroom with John Edwards questioning President Bush.  The impatient and simmering Commander in Chief has had it with the preening pretty boy's pompous line of questioning:

Bush: You want answers?
Edwards: I think I'm entitled to them.
Bush: You want answers?
Edwards: I want the truth.
Bush: You can't handle the truth! Senator, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Senator Edwards? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the casualties and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that their death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incompresensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the incrination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
Edwards: Did you order the intelligence changed?
Bush: I did the job America sent me to do.
Edwards: Did you order the intelligence changed?
Bush: You're goddamn right I did!!

At which point, of course, he's handcuffed and taken away.  All we need is a few more good memos.

-- Zap

Pointing Fingers on Oil-For-Food

Hoping to use revelations about UN mismanagement and blind-eye monitoring in the oil-for-food program with Saddam, Senate Republicans like Norm Coleman (the Investigations Subcomittee Chair) continue to point to news of the scandal as indications that John Bolton's nomination for ambassador should be approved. Coleman and the GOP have concentrated on the UN failures to control the program in their reporting; the Democrats have their own view of things--and neither surprisingly or without cause, the finger of blame ends up back on GW.

The Guardian's coverage is a little gleeful in the diversion away from the UN and Europe as the sole incompetents/profiteers in the whole messy business. Knight-Ridder covers a broader view of the Subcommittee's findings and prints some angry denials, but doesn't offer some of the starker excerpts from the report itself. The Guardian complies:

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.

The report is likely to ease pressure from conservative Republicans on Kofi Annan to resign from his post as UN secretary general.

The new findings are also likely to be raised when Mr Galloway appears before the Senate subcommittee on investigations today.

Note that last program reminder, there: Galloway will go almost on trial tomorrow, although without fear of getting hauled off to jail afterwards. This is clearly some pump priming from the Guardian, and includes the hopeful(ly naieve) view that the pressure of conservative Republicans  might--short of being predicated by their removal-- ease.  Nonetheless, that's Senate material they're quoting, and framed by the assuredly fiery "what about your glass house" testimony by Galloway, it is possible that Coleman's quest will be temporarily muted.

Reuters, like many stories from the last day or so,  concentrates on the Russian angle, mentioning the BayOil facilitation only in the very last line. The Russians are surely pissed, and of course the French wouldn't ever miss an opportunity to turn around and point the finger at us--which of course in the grand scheme here is fairly appropriate.

It's doubtful that anyone will come out smelling like roses, although with control of the microphone it's likely that the UN-Russian connection will become the GOP meme, ignoring both Bay Oil and the general US complicity in the whole affair.

And their solution to this mess is John Bolton? The guy who pushed the yellowcake story (pp 6-7)  through his office and into State of the Union infamy? That same Waxman letter to Christopher Shays from March with the Bolton yellowcake findings, also just happens to review the administration's report on oil-for-food profiteers. Strangely, the US companies are redacted, replaced by "US Company." The CIA sought to block the release of the names of those companies. Hmmm...wonder why.

--TJ

The Essence of Moral Victory

#45#

The Democrats were unable to prevent John Bolton from being passed out of committee, even if it was under the rarely used neutral recommendation. But boy, from the looks on the faces of the two parties, it was clear who felt better about the day's outcome. There was no triumphalism from the GOP backers, unless you count goofy George Allen (a man who served at my unwilling pleasure in Virginia as goobernor):

Allen offered the most colorful Bolton defense, suggesting that diplomats should not be effete. "We are not electing Mr. Congeniality," he said. "We do not need Mr. Milquetoast in the United Nations. We're not electing Mr. Peepers to go there and just be really happy, and drinking tea with their pinkies up."

Reverting to his inevitable football talk, Allen acknowledged that the Voinovich move was a blow, but he seemed confident that Bolton would prevail on the floor. "After the last hearing we had, where we played for second down," Allen said, this time "we have moved the ball downfield."

Biden, with evident mockery, interjected: "We're looking for an onsides kick."

Allen replied: "We just got a first down. Haven't scored yet."

This is a really illustrative style of reportage, and one that draws you into the political process. Dahlia Lithwick makes really dry legal arcana sound fascinating in her descriptions from the chambers of the Supreme Court, and here I think Dana Milbank achieves the same evocations. Perhaps I noticed it because due to contractual obligations, the hearing was carried on CSPAN-3, which most cable systems don't carry. Comcast sure doesn't, anyway. So in a way reminiscient of wartime dispatches sent by morse back to editors stateside, I'm relying on Milbank to provide a sense of the Committee. He doesn't disappoint:

The first hint of trouble yesterday came when Richard Lugar (Ind.), the chairman, asked permission for Voinovich to speak second instead of Joseph R. Biden (Del.), the ranking Democrat. "I would prefer," the loquacious Biden replied, "if you're willing, after you speak, for me to be able to make my opening statement."

But Lugar insisted, and after Voinovich spoke ("Why in the world would you want to send somebody up to the U.N. that has to be supervised?"), Biden understood.

"I don't know why I thought for a moment that maybe Senator Voinovich shouldn't go second," the Democrat said to laughter.
...

Lugar held a thin smile while Voinovich talked. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), who took a political risk by backing Bolton, stared at his water glass and looked as if he were about to cry. Bolton defender Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) fidgeted in his chair; Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), another Bolton fan, smirked.

On the other side, Democrats whispered, chuckled and huddled, apparently plotting a new strategy. Biden was uncharacteristically at a loss for words. "Look, I don't -- quite frankly, much of what I was going to say would be redundant and not as eloquent as what we just heard."

Biden recovered enough to give a room-emptying, 51-minute speech, drawing laughter when he said, after 25 minutes, "Let me now turn to the nomination."

Maybe this is the kind of reporting we should be most worried about. Theoretically I'm held hostage to Milbank's selection of moments to highlight. Maybe everybody was really like George Allen, and the GOP slumped in their seats and doodled while Boxer and Kerry went on and on (although I bet they had one eye open during Obama's speech). But that's the part of journalism I want: paint the scene for me; give me your understanding of the sense of the room instead of the spin of the parties involved. Clearly there's a factual news obligation, but that was the wire story's job. Let the story breathe.

A small moment, but a rather extraordinary one. Nothing loves a story like a politician voting his conscience. And if it peters out on the full floor, the enduring story will have already been told.

--TJ

Townsel Confession Unresolved on Eve of Bolton Vote

#45#

[this post is a consolidation of comments and posts both at Also Also and elsewhere; its length is a function of the effort at putting all the material in one place. In places I have edited the material, links are provided for the full versions.]

It appears that unless something fairly unusual happens, John Bolton's status in committee will be decided tomorrow. As most are familiar, one of the most notable witnesses in the drawn-out Foreign Relations drama is Dallas businesswoman Melody Townsel, whose allegations seemed to personify in example the  lack of  Bolton's social skills as others see them. However, shortly after coming forth, she felt compelled to reveal elements of her past--plagiarism-- in an attempt to get ahead of a scandal story, getting her version out first. And then Also Also got tangentially involved, as a key player in her revelation story began commenting in response to a piece I did on her confession.

The break on the story before Bolton's hearing came through a reader at Daily Kos posting as "amyindallas," who said her friend was alleging harassment by Bolton. Being chased down the hall of a Kyrgish(?) hotel makes for racy hearing content, certainly. Over the next ten days, amyindallas provided somewhat of a PR front for Townsel, reporting on corroborations of her story, asking Kossacks to help protect her from political smears..and then, on April 25th, a diary ominously titled, "Important Melody Townsel revelation--PLEASE DISSEMINATE".

The diary contained a confession to plagiarism twenty-two years earlier, 10 years before her encounter with Bolton. Townsel's stated intent was to get things out into the open, and hopefully thus deflect some of the political fallout that might have been expected on the issue of her credibility. At the time I read it, I was impressed with the forthrightness and courage, and the smart move to reveal everything up front, right away--so I did her the service amyindallas asked for; I posted it here.

For two days nothing happened. We received one comment, and the story moved down the page. But on the 28th, this appeared:

What does it mean if you "confess" to committing plagiarism 22 years ago, but lie about the particulars of the plagiarism? That's the case here.

Posted by: bw | April 28, 2005 07:12 AM

This seemed like rather a bombshell, and as far as I suspected, a bit of troll fishery going on. Donning my skeptic's hat, I replied,

bw, I'm unaware of what you're referring to, and as yet I'm unable to find any google reference to there being a problem with her story about plagiarism. Can you be specific on what you're talking about?

The response to that was definitely more detailed, and seemed to be a synoposis of an article at a college paper in Texas, The University of Texas at Arlington Shorthorn:

The "other college newspaper" she refers to is "The Shorthorn" at the University of Texas at Arlington. It was not a review for a local play that got her dismissed from The Shorthorn. It was a two-page (broadsheet) commentary on world hunger -- 90 percent of which was plagiarized word for word from Newsweek and Time. And to say "we mutually agreed that I would no longer submit stories to them" makes it sounds as if she was occasionally submitting stories. She was, however, the editorial page editor of the paper.

Well then. That certainly seems odd, but I don't get it--why would she lie in a confession whose sole point was to protect her credibility? And why would she lie about something so verifiable? I'm still suspicious, and I continue to believe the commenter is working off the Shorthorn article for their information:

I agree there are discrepancies between the two accounts, but the Shorthorn account appears incomplete, or at least does not attempt to deal with any of the discrepancies. Does the editor have any recollection of a "theater piece?" Without disciplinary measures revealed, it's hard to say what happened, and I don't think it's clear that there were two substantiated allegations of copying--just the one.

A little more information is revealed:

I can assure you that there was no "theater" piece. The article that led to Melody Townsel's dismissal from the paper at the University of Texas at Arlington was the two-page commentary she wrote as the editorial page editor that was plagiarized from Time and Newsweek.

My only point is that she is speaking untruthfully about the very thing she's "confessing" to. She admits to plagiarizing columms (from the Dallas Morning News) when she was at Abilene Christian University, and then fabricates a lie about what she did at the University of Texas at Arlington months later. What does that tell you?
...

I have followed this chain of events with great interest since it was first brought to my attention several days ago. I know Melody or, more precisely, I worked with Melody when we were students together at the University of Texas at Arlington and working together on the student publication, The Shorthorn. I am painfully aware of the facts in this case, and so reading Melody's "confession" was not a pleasant ride down memory lane -- nor do I imagine it was for her, although I sincerely wish she had been more truthful about an event that hurt so many people.

Well goodness, now we have something--a first person account of the event Melody is confessing to! At least, that's what they're claiming they have. I'm intrigued, and I try to draw the person out, which is successful. The commenter identifies himself, and spills the story:

I know that my representation of the facts is correct because I'm the sad fellow that discovered Melody's plagiarism in The Shorthorn at the University of Texas at Arlington. I can assure you that it was one of the bleakest moments of my career as I took a red pen and underlined line after line after line after line of plagiarized copy in one of the longest articles The Shorthorn had ever published. As our adviser said at the time, and later, she was too good a writer to have committed such an offense, and yet she did.

I became aware of Melody's involvement in the Bolton confirmation hearings when someone sent me an e-mail pointing me to the day's news stories. When I saw that Sen. Joe Biden was reading her infamous letter to the committee, I cringed -- making the immediate association with Melody's plagiarism and Biden's own history of it that short-circuited his presidential bid. I called the senator's office to caution him about this because I didn't want to see the Democrats embarrassed by revelations that a key witness had committed plagiarism in the past -- a fact that was certain to raise doubts about her story. I confess that I was conflicted because having read about John Bolton, he didn't strike me as a sterling choice for the U.N. position. I had the sense that my call to Biden's office was just blown off; no doubt they thought it was some partisan attempt to discredit Melody. So I followed up with an e-mail, expressing my concern.

Two days later, Melody's associate posted Melody's "confession." It my understanding that the letter was prompted by a story that was about to be published in "the Optimist," the student publication of Abilene Christian University, where Melody had plagiarized some opinion columns. As I started to read Melody's letter, I thought, "Well good for you, Melody ... get it out of the way." Then I read her version of what happened at UTA, and I could only shake my head, trying my bewildered best to understand.

Hours after reading that letter, I received a call from a reporter at The Shorthorn, asking me about what transpired in 1985 at UTA. I answered all his questions. After speaking with him, I wrote to Melody -- my first contact with her in 22 years -- and let her know that no good could possibly come from her putting out a version of the 1985 events that had so little bearing on the truth, and that I had already been asked about it.

OK, at this point I start to believe the guy. I decide to leave the question of his credibility alone, and press him for more information on the circumstances of the incident, and he complies with pleasure:

    I was the editor of The Shorthorn at UTA in the fall and spring semesters of 1984 and 1985. In September 1985, when the plagiarism occurred, I was taking classes in the morning and working at the Dallas Times Herald (now defunct) in the afternoon. My usual routine was to pick up The Shorthorn and read it during my lunch hour at the Times Herald.

I only had to read two paragraphs of Melody's opinion piece to know that I'd read it before and that I was looking at something really serious. It didn't take too long to find the sources, which turned out to be lengthy articles in Time and Newsweek. I then undertook the arduous task of underlining every plagiarized line in red -- every non-plagiarized line in blue. It was not a pretty sight to look at that sea of red across two broadsheet-sized pages. As a former editor of the paper, it was heartbreaking. I reported it to the director of publications and the paper's adviser, and presented them with the evidence and the underlined pages that night. Needless to say, all of us were very upset by the scale of Melody's plagiarism. Speechless, might be a better description.

As The Shorthorn reported in its April 27 story, Melody was confronted by the director of publications, the advisor, the editor-in-chief and myself. I'm sure I insisted on being present out of some sense of vanity. In reality, I was no longer on the staff of the paper, so my part in this drama was over.

You ask questions about Melody's current intentions regarding her version of the plagiarism at UTA that I can't answer. Why she would turn the opinion piece into the fiction of a "review" is beyond me. Why she would turn her senior position on the paper as the editorial page editor into the fiction of "submitting articles" as if she was a sporadic contributor is beyond me. Given the magnifying glass that her accusations about Bolton put her under, I can't even begin to fathom why she would lie about an incident of plagiarism to which she was confessing.

And who knows? Maybe you're right. Maybe the "review" was a plagiarism incident at a third college, and she completely left out the incident at UTA. If that's so, then I completely misunderstood her letter, although I'd then have to ask why her confession would omit her most egregious exercise in plagiarism. And if there was a third incident of plagiarism at a third college, doesn't that call her credibility even further into question? I'm not sure I'd even want to hazard a guess as to what that says about her character. I don't know the answers to any of these questions because after her dismissal from the paper, I never heard anything further about Melody until the other day when her charges against Bolton became public.

It turns out that my attempts to caution Sen. Biden were in vain. I could only cringe when Melody's plagiarism "confession" was read on the air by Rush Limbaugh, who then added, "No wonder Joe Biden loves this gal," or something to that effect.

And that's the record Theo gave us to work from initially. Using the number of the phone Carracino claimed to have received the call from the Shorthorn reporter on, I confirmed to my satisfaction that he was who he claimed to be. (He actually gave me two, both repeated by the Shorthorn reporter). Believing Also Also had stumbled onto some fairly pertinent information from a primary source, I set about finding a wider audience for his comments--both to inform the developing story, and also to see if I could get any response to what Theo was saying, since later on in the original Kos diary a poster calling herself Melody Townsel arrived:

Hello, all:

Thanks for all your tremendous support here tonight. As you might imagine, I'm not getting much sleep this night and early morning before I speak with the Senate, and your remarks here are making this a bit easier.

Please do help me spread this news as far and wide as you can today.

In deep gratitude,

Melody Townsel

I did not comment in that diary, but on the 29th of April, four days after her confession appeared, I posted my own diary linking back to the original Also Also post, under the somewhat inflammatory headline, "College Editor: Melody Townsel is Still Lying." Two problems with that head are that Theo had been editor for the paper, but not at the time; and that she was lying, a conclusion Theo had reached and I'd agreed with in interpretation of his story, but which was not necessarily proven. An even greater problem was that readers of my link saw at the top the copy of Melody's statement, and were understandably confused. Once they found the parts I was trying to point them towards, much of the readership was as I expected--unfazed, perhaps even a little hostile to the diary and me. Negligibly so, perhaps, but I felt it. I essentially let the matter drop, having posted the link for comment and gotten predictable feedback--although some people claimed the search for a response by Melody was a sensible act.

A week later, Townsel was back, but this time with her own diary: "Help Me Keep it Real!" The unfortunate irony aside, I figured this was a good time to seek clarification on Theo's comments:

melody, question: (none / 1)

what do you make of the story in the UTA Shorthorn, and the comments of the editor at the time, Theo Carracino, who disputes your version of events from that period? From his account it appears your confession to plagiarism was itself misleading, regarding the circumstances of your dismissal from that staff. I've been speaking with him personally, and he raises some issues that I'd like you to respond to.

Melody, I'm not disputing your Bolton account at all. Certainly in general, it fits in squarely with what a host of other people have said about his character. I'm interested in your attempt to get out in front of the plagiarism story, and why others are saying you misrepresented yourself in your attempt to explain past misrepresentations.

If you'd like to respond offline, please contact me at [email protected]. But maybe you'd like to explain publicly why you claimed you were working on a theater piece instead of one on African famine, and why you failed to disclose that you were fired not once but twice for plagiarism.

TJ

by torridjoe on Sat May 7th, 2005 at 11:15:00 PDT

As of press time tonight, I have yet to see or hear of a response by Ms. Townsel to these questions--which is why in tonight's headline I refer to the allegations as unresolved. I did again receive several comments of high skepticism, which in retrospect is the same thing I showed when confronted with Theo's comments.

This diary too fell off the board and into seeming oblivion, but Kossack Glinda happened to notice a new entry two days later, from Carracino. In it, he lays out most of what I've reprinted here. This led her to coordinate all of the Kos Townsel discussion in a very comprehensive diary published yesterday, including all relevant diaries posted either by or about Townsel.

That diary obviously drew comments as well, among them a quite valid request to see proof of what Carracino was saying--that it was not a theater piece but a famine piece, that it was quite large for a college paper, and that it was clearly copied right from Newsweek. In the comments, Theo provided the proof, located in the Shorthorn archives and linked via pdf here. Go to page six of the document, for the sidebar on the two versions of the story, Townsel's and Newsweek's. [Apologies that I don't have Acrobat full version, in order to extract the texts; you'll have to read and compare them yourselves.] 

Towards the end of Glinda's diary, she makes this plea for alternate explanations of the situation:

...it doesn't mean she's a liar. It means she has repressed and forgotten those years. Since she "spilled her guts" before Theo Carracino disputed her version, it is entirely possible, to my mind, that to her it was the truth as she remembered it -- albeit through a veil of repressed memories. And it's possible that no old friend has been around to disabused her of the past 22 years of "reconstruction" (aka repression).

It's also possible that as soon as Theo posted his version she said "Oh my God! That's right. I'd completely forgotten about that." But she might be too concerned with her "veracity" to admit it.

This is a valid point. People suppress and distort bad memories quite often, in fact. I am certainly willing to entertain the possibility. But as yet that explanation has not been offered by Townsel herself, and at this point the ease of latching onto that explanation as exoneration would be mighty tempting. So perhaps she is not lying, but confused. As her testimony almost certainly becomes part of the debate record tomorrow, I wonder what will come out in the hearing, if anything, regarding the admission of plagiarism. If it's mentioned that her confession is disputed, I'll be mighty surprised--but you heard it here first, or second, or so.

One last oddity: it appears that "amyindallas" is Amy Hunt, a partner in Melody's PR firm. And from the diary where she posted Melody's confession, she says this: "... I worked with her at the second college paper, where the allegations WEREN'T true."

Now THAT is odd. First of all, she repeats that the allegations weren't true, which, if she had worked with Melody at the Shorthorn (or if she'd read the full current article covering the controversy), she would realize was incorrect. Secondly and more importantly, according to Carracino Ms. Hunt was not involved at the UTA paper. In fact, it's not at all clear she even went to school there; she lists UT Austin as her alma mater. Surely that kind of memory loss is neither traumatic nor very believable as an excuse--you'd remember where you went to college. I'll leave you to chew on that one as the hearings begin.

--TJ

State Sits, Spins

In a moderately significant development three days out from the presumed Bolton vote, Ranking Member Joe Biden is threatening to attempt a further delay until requested documents on Bolton's career are produced by folks at the State Department*. This is not without political risk, as both Republicans on the panel and the public at large may throw up their hands and stop giving Biden and the Democrats the benefit of the doubt that they are not blocking just to block.

But I certainly don't blame them for holding out to get the information; for one thing, the request had the agreement of Senator Lugar at the last meeting for State to provide those documents. Obviously the Republicans are hiding behind the administration on this one, as Lugar seems unconcered about what was and was not yet delivered.  No wonder, since from Biden's angle  only documents answering assuredly softball Republican questions have been responded to. And that seems to be the directive, in this gem of evasion from a State spokesacrat:

"I don't think we're stiffing anybody here," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said. "What we're doing is providing all of the information that's required that's relevant to the investigation," Casey said. "We feel we've given all of the information that's required under those circumstances." [emph mine both times]

How's that for a dodge? In a remarkable twist of the understanding given to common English, a request by a bipartisan committee of the US Congress must--in addition to accepted security concerns--actually require a test for relevancy and an analysis of the circumstances. Fulfilling the request as detailed would be an unprecedented breach of accepted methods for not releasing information that might be damaging to you or your appointees.

Which is really the heart of the question: given the failure to cite "national security," which is the favorite code for "it's too embarrasing," what plausible reason is there to stiff Biden? What's in the intercept requests, that makes those 10 so different from the 400 others made that year? What's in Bolton's personnel dossier?

Nothing, nothing nothing nyaaah nyaaah! is Condi's reponse:

"I see nothing that suggests that John was anything but an interested consumer of intelligence and asked difficult questions," Rice said in the CNN interview. "I don't think there's anything wrong with someone, a policy-maker, asking difficult questions of the intelligence community."

Interested consumer of intelligence. Yeah, and Tony Soprano's an interested consumer of information about the new guys running numbers in their neighborhood. I wonder if "Would you like to tell me Cuba has nukes, or would you like to find your ass riding your briefcase out the front door instead?" is a difficult question.

What's wrong with the Democrats? Why can't they just pass Bolton through--a man who is obviously qualified for the job, and has just the right attitude? Listen to what this gaggle of US foreign diplomats say about him:

[Forty-three] former U.S. ambassadors added their names to a letter signed earlier by 59 ex-ambassadors opposing the nomination. Among the new signers were A. Peter Burleigh, a former acting U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Most of them served in Republican administrations.

--TJ

*How come we generally call it the Department OF Justice, the Department OF Defense, and the Department OF the Interior, but the State Department, and perhaps the Energy Department?

Bolton "Abusee" Pre-empts Revealment of Past

Melody Townsel, the USAID worker who claims to have been seriously berated and harrassed by John Bolton, has asked that her confession to college plagiarism while working for the school newspaper be widely disseminated in advance of her Senate testimony. In an attempt to take the sting out of the revealment by those who support Bolton's candidacy, she admits plagiarism on multiple columns, for which she was fired. A subsequent writing job also produced allegations of plagiarism, although Townsel denies responsibility in that instance. The incidents occurred 22 years ago.

For someone who broke one of journalism's highest laws, she seems to have picked up on the edict that when you blow it, come clean right away. It will be interesting to see how much focus ends up being paid to Townsel--I have a hunch that certainly after this her deposition will be a key media moment in the nomination process, and quite plausibly her testimony could send the wavering Republican Senators in one direction or another.

At this point I'm not sure what to make of Ms. Townsel's story as regards Bolton, but this is a pretty gutsy move from someone who certainly never expected the kind of stage she may soon command for a brief moment. She at least deserves to confess her own sins, so I'm willing to offer her the chance by linking to her comments.

--TJ