Political MoJo

Plame Case: The Plot Thickens

| Sun Aug. 27, 2006 2:20 PM EDT

There's long been speculation about Richard Armitage's role in the ongoing Valerie Plame saga, which has already forced the resignation of Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, and, to an extent, ensnared the Veep himself. In the past two weeks, though, the former deputy secretary of state has emerged not just as a bit player in the leak case but as a central figure. Last week the AP reported that an entry in Armitage's State Department calendar reflects a one-hour appointment with Bob Woodward (who has acknowledged having an informal discussion about Plame with an administration official) on June 13, 2003, not long before Plame's status as a covert CIA operative was blown in a column by Robert Novak. Today Newsweek, plugging a new book by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, is reporting that Armitage was Novak's primary source, the "senior administration official" Novak has previously referred to as "not a partisan gunslinger." According to the story:

Armitage, a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters, apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame's identity. "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing," he later told Carl Ford Jr., State's intelligence chief. Ford says Armitage admitted to him that he had "slipped up" and told Novak more than he should have. "He was basically beside himself that he was the guy that f---ed up. My sense from Rich is that it was just chitchat," Ford recalls….

While Armitage's disclosure of Plame's identity may have come about during a bull session with Novak and perhaps Woodward too, there is certainly evidence to suggest that in the hands of White House officials this information was not dispensed accidentally, but rather used in an effort to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, for his criticism of the Bush administration's use of pre-war intel on Iraq. Expect many more interesting revelations about the Plame affair with the publication of Isikoff and Corn's book, "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War," which will be out in October.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

If Talking About Dams is Suspicious, Let's Investigate Bush

| Sun Aug. 27, 2006 4:39 AM EDT

So Jim Bensman, who's a fixture of just about any environmental debate in the Midwest, goes to a public meeting to discuss a dam in St. Louis and, surprise, says he'd just as soon see the dam gone. The local paper dutifully reports that Benson "said he would like to see the dam blown up and resents paying taxes to fix dam problems when it is barge companies that profit from the dam." Next thing you know the Corps of Engineers--which you'd think had other things to worry about--calls the FBI to investigate Bensman as a possible security threat. And the FBI actually bothers to follow through. All this at a time when the White House is, for the first time ever, endorsing blowing up dams.

NYC, Civil Rights Groups Blast TV's Survivor

| Sat Aug. 26, 2006 1:22 PM EDT

Rina wrote a few days ago about how the next round of Survivor will feature teams divided by race. There has been a firestorm of response to the announcement, from bloggers predictably, but also from civil rights groups and government officials. Yesterday, New York's city council held a press conference to denounce the show. City councilmember John Liu:

"This idea is so ill conceived that it would be funny--but for the fact that racism does still sometimes rear its ugly head. This show has the potential to set back our nation's race relations by 50 years. Nowhere else do we tolerate racial segregation, and we certainly won't stand for it in this battle-of-the-races scheme to prop up sagging television ratings."

Another councilmember said that the producers didn't realize the damaging impact of their decision. In fact, the coverage of this twist all seems to say as much, that Mark Burnett, the king of reality television and a slave to controversy, "didn't really think it would have such an uproar."

Yeah, right. This is precisely the outcome he was hoping for. I mean come on, he got Rush Limbaugh to wax on about it on his show this week. And he really couldn't have been more offensive, stirring the controversy pot for the show and Mr. Burnett:

Hispanics, he said, "have shown a remarkable ability to cross borders" and "will do things other people won't do." Asians are "the best at espionage, keeping secrets." Blacks "lack buoyancy" and are "more likely to drown," while the white man's burden will weigh down the last team with "guilt over the fact that they run things."

CBS is defending the show, saying it will answer the critics "on the screen." The thing that people may not want to admit is that reality is a lot closer to this situation than we're comfortable admitting. Neighborhoods and schools are becoming more, not less, segregated and some seem to be fine with that. And if we're not then the fight is better fought in our communities, rather than aimed at Hollywood. This Survivor scenario seems to tug at the unease that manifests when true survival is at stake: Watts, Rodney King, O.J., Katrina, all times when we have had to look critically at how we deal with race in this country. We may not want to see people of different races competing for food, shelter, luxuries and their very existence on television. We don't have to, we can just take a hard look at our country to see the same. Most people won't, but you'd better believe they'll tune in September 14th.

State Farm Accused of Cheating Katrina Customers

| Fri Aug. 25, 2006 10:57 PM EDT

Kerri Rigsby and Cori Rigsby, two independent insurance adjusters who worked exclusively for State Farm for eight years, say they have turned over to the FBI and Mississippi investigators thousands of documents proving that the insurance company systematically cheated victims of Hurricane Katrina. In an interview with ABC News, Rigsby and Rigsby describe what they call "widespread fraud" in State Farm offices in Biloxi and Gulfport, Mississippi.

The adjusters say that the insurance company brought in a shredding truck to destroy documents; however, State Farm maintains that shredding documents is standard procedure to protect customers' privacy. However, Rigsby and Rigsby also said that outside engineers were pressured to prepare reports stating that structural damage was caused by water (not covered in State Farm policies), not wind. Furthermore, they reported that when wind was listed as the cause of damage, the reports were hidden and new reports were ordered.

Hundreds of homeowners in the areas damaged by Katrina have complained that they cannot get paid by their insurance companies, and State Farm is often mentioned as an especially difficult company to get money from. One of the most frequent reasons cited for refusing to pay is that house damage was caused by water, not wind. However, it is not unusual to hear homeowners say that they were told this even if their house did not flood.

Bush Flip Flops on New Stem Cell Procedure

| Fri Aug. 25, 2006 8:11 PM EDT

This week the genetic engineering of nonembryos has been all the buzz. That this procedure is a red herring is one issue. But more than that it seems President Bush is wearing the venerable flip flops on this one.

The procedure was actually born out of his own Presidential Council on Bioethics and when Republican Senators Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter co-sponsored a bill that would have allocated NIH funding to this type of research, he was all for it. In a press conference, on July 19 (the same day Bush vetoed the more significant stem cell bill), he had this to say after the Santorum-Specter bill didn’t pass through the House:

"I'm disappointed that Congress failed to pass another bill that would have promoted good research...It would have authorized additional federal funding for promising new research that could produce cells with the abilities of embryonic cells, but without the destruction of human embryos. This is an important piece of legislation...I'm disappointed that the House failed to authorize funding for this vital and ethical research."

But this week a White House spokeswoman told the New York Times that

"The new procedure would not satisfy the objections of Mr. Bush…Any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical questions. This technique does not resolve those concerns."

So once the science shows progress beyond mice, Bush backs off and shows how much he really supports "promising new research."

Rocky Mountain Low for Coors Executive

| Fri Aug. 25, 2006 7:07 PM EDT

If you had a beer named after you and were the company's vice chairman, regularly appearing on TV asking your customers to drink, but responsibly, would you make sure not to drive drunk? Pete Coors wouldn't. In May he was stopped after rolling through a stop sign on his own block. He was arrested when a breathalyzer test showed his blood alcohol level to be .088 percent.

The court in Golden, Colorado, decided to make an example of the man whose company has made the town famous. An example, that is, of how to get no more than a slap on the hand for a drunk driving charge. Last Friday, Coors pled guilty to driving while impaired (though his blood alcohol level clearly put him in the more serious category of driving under the influence). His sentence? Twenty-four hours of community service and a suspended license for three months. The judge also waived the $200 fine, which would surely have broken Mr. Coors. With widely-publicized punishments like these, it's no wonder the number of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities has skyrocketed this past year.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Shays Sets a Timeline for a Timeline, and Slams Rumsfeld

| Fri Aug. 25, 2006 3:26 PM EDT

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), chairman of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, is breaking with his party to urge withdrawal from Iraq. Sort of. Shays, who is facing a tough electoral challenge from anti-war Democrat Diane Farrell, is expected to produce a timeline for withdrawal after holding a series of hearings next month. But Shays seems to think the main problem in Iraq is flaccid "political will on the part of Iraqis." The congressman believes establishing a timeline would firm up the Iraqis' will, but waffles when it comes to when the troops would actually be withdrawn. "It may be a timeline the American people don't want to hear," he said. "It may not be something that brings them [the troops] out quickly."

But Shays didn't mince words in his criticism of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. As Mother Jones Investigative Correspondent James Ridgeway reports in the current issue, Shays subpoenaed Rumsfeld in his committee's investigation of the Abu Ghraib abuses. Yesterday, Shays said Rumsfeld has made "huge mistakes" in Iraq, adding, "I haven't had faith in the secretary in a long time."

Fidel Castro's Visit to Texas

| Fri Aug. 25, 2006 1:58 PM EDT

In 1959, after the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro visited Texas. Houston residents gave him a standing ovation, the mayor gave him a handshake and ranchers, who had dressed their children in revolutionary garb, gave him a horse. Business leaders were so enthusiastic about Castro that they talked about making a movie of the Cuban revolution starring Marlon Brando. "Fidel Castro swept through Houston in glory bordering on pandemonium, with sirens failing to drown out the cheers of his admirers," the Houston Chronicle wrote at the time. Today, a Chronicle article looks back on the event. It quotes a Houston business leader who visited Castro in Cuba and recalled what must have been an especially Texan fascination with the revolution at the time: "It was almost like walking into the wild, wild West with a Spanish flavor."

The visit, in which Castro was accompanied by his brother Raul, had been orchestrated by then-Texan Senator and future President Lyndon Baines Johnson. At the time Castro was still viewed as a likely force for democracy. Still, the invitation to Texas would seem no less plausible today if it came from President George W. Bush, who has so much in common with the dictator. At Bush's Crawford ranch, the two revolucionarios could talk about limiting civil liberties, detaining and torturing people, usurping executive power and beating up on the media—and maybe adjourn for a bit of target practice. Who knows, maybe Bush will hit it off with Raul. The two men are, after all, both the inheritors of a dynasty.

The Rising Cost of Secrecy

| Fri Aug. 25, 2006 1:45 PM EDT

The Bush administration's penchant for secrecy is no secret (Cheney's office refuses even to provide figures on how much information it classifies), so it should come as little surprise that the government is now spending more than ever to shield information from public view. Still, the numbers just in from the Information Security Oversight Office, which oversees the government's national security classification system and recommends policy to the president, are staggering. During fiscal year 2005 the government spent $7.7 billion on classification, up from $2.7 billion in 1995 and "a 5.8 percent increase above the cost estimates reported for FY 2004," according to the ISOO report. Add to that the $1.5 billion that private industry spends on classification and the total amount rises to $9.2 billion.

Beyond the fact that classifying information is enormously expensive -- in 2004 taxpayers spent $460 each time a classification decision was made -- there is evidence that some information is being classified needlessly. A 2005 report from the watchdog group Open The Government found that "at least 50 types of designations" are being used "to restrict unclassified information deemed 'sensitive but unclassified.' Many of these numerous terms are duplicative, vague, and endanger the protection of necessary secrets by allowing excessive secrecy to prevail in our open society." As the Federation of American Scientists' Steven Aftergood points out over at Secrecy News, "If the classification system were functioning properly to enhance national security, these billions of dollars might all be money well spent. But there is abundant reason to doubt that such is the case."

Nagin's "Hole in the Ground" Comment Draws Claws

| Fri Aug. 25, 2006 1:03 PM EDT

Mayor Ray Nagin probably shouldn't have called Ground Zero a hole in the ground (you can watch him say it on 60 Minutes this Sunday), but does Google News really need to post this article covering it, out of the 246 related ones it had to choose from:

The next few weeks will see a furious struggle to frame two important anniversaries, with the media spinning in overdrive to play up the importance of the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and at the same time to downplay the significance of the five-year anniversary of September 11. The reasons are simple: Katrina helps Democrats, 9/11 help President Bush and the GOP.

This is Google News, not Google Opinion, or Google Soapbox. John McIntyre a conservative pundit who, wait for it, writes for Fox News, goes on:

Let me give a little piece of unsolicited PR advice to Mayor Nagin: comments like that will quickly have the country siding 95% with New York and against New Orleans. I get pissed just thinking about Nagin contemptuously describing the ground where Islamist's attacked and murdered over 2,500 Americans as simply "A hole in the ground." I'd love to see a full scale, accurate and honest documentary covering the entire Katrina crisis period of Mayor Nagin and the New Orleans city government and compare that to Mayor Giuliani and New York City's response to 9/11.

The rub here is that Giuliani and Nagin, no matter how they handled their respective disasters, and one could argue that the former had a lot more to work with, when it comes to catastrophes of this scope the buck stops with the President. Bush can't have it both ways, flexing his executive power to the point of theocracy one day then vacationing when crisis strikes. And Mr. McIntyre doesn't mention two quite relevant things: first, there was ample warning, days in fact, before Katrina struck and Bush did nothing (and then later lied about getting advanced warning). And perhaps more egregious, he failed to learn from his behavior when the twin towers were struck. On both 9/11 and during Katrina our Commander in Chief was paralyzed, inept in the precise moments presidents are meant for.