The many, many reasons Katrina victims can now feel reassured

Tom Delay as Roberto Benigni

No worries: Tom Delay is now on the scene!... According to this blog entry on the Houston Post website, headlined, "Delay to evacuees: `Is this kind of fun?'", House Majority Leader Tom Delay has descended on Houston to provide solace and comfort for Katrina victims:

U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's visit to Reliant Park this morning offered him a glimpse of what it's like to be living in shelter.

While on the tour with top administration officials from Washington, including U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao and U.S. Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, DeLay stopped to chat with three young boys resting on cots.

The congressman likened their stay to being at camp and asked, "Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?"

They nodded yes, but looked perplexed.

And it's not entirely all that bad for the grown-ups either!... according to former First Lady Barbara Bush, who noted that many of the evacuees who she has visited with "were underprivileged anyway."

According to this NYT report:

As President Bush battled criticism over the response to Hurricane Katrina, his mother declared it a success for evacuees who "were underprivileged anyway," saying on Monday that many of the poor people she had seen while touring a Houston relocation site were faring better than before the storm hit.

"What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas," Barbara Bush said in an interview on Monday with the radio program "Marketplace." "Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality."

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway," she said, "so this is working very well for them."

Mrs. Bush toured the Astrodome complex with her husband, former President George Bush, as part of an administration campaign throughout the Gulf Coast region to counter criticism of the response to the storm.

And even though he has been ordered out of New Orleans, and back to Washington D.C., embattled FEMA director (at least for the time being) Michael Brown told the A.P.: "I'm going to go home and walk my dog and hug my wife, and maybe get a good Mexican meal and a stiff magarita and a full night's sleep. And then I'm going to go right back to FEMA and continue to do all I can to help these victims."

And this particular factoid buried in this NYT story:

President Bush noted... that Afghanistan has offered to send $100,000 to aid victims, and that Kuwait had volunteered to provide $400 million in oil and $100 million in humanitarian aid.

Bone chilling.... CNN is reporting this afternoon that shrimp fisherman have taken out fourteen bodies from New Orleans Parkland hospital. Nobody knows just as now as to whether the deceased were patients, physicians, or simply people who simply were at the hospital at the wrong time.

Meanwhile, on its website, CNN is also reporting that authorities removed the bodies of more than 30 people from a nursing home in a suburban New Orleans parish.

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- In a grim indicator of what may lie ahead, authorities were removing the remains of more than 30 people from a flooded nursing home in a suburban New Orleans parish.

The discovery at St. Rita's Nursing Home in lower St. Bernard Parish came as 25,000 body bags arrived at the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.

Early Thursday, the official death toll along from Hurricane Katrina stood at 294, but that number is expected to rise dramatically.

Mortuary teams with refrigerated trucks began arriving Wednesday at the nursing home, where St. Bernard Parish Sheriff Jack Stevens said "30-plus" bodies were found. Between 40 and 50 other people were rescued from the facility, Stevens said. (See video on the gruesome discovery -- 2:02)

The parish is east of New Orleans, where between 10,000 and 15,000 people are believed to remain in the flooded city, and thousands are feared dead.

Deputies reported that floodwaters had reached a height of eight feet in some parts of St. Bernard. The nursing home was still surrounded by about three feet of water on Wednesday, as authorities began removing bodies.

Throughout New Orleans and its surrounding parishes, National Guard troops were going house to house to search for survivors and recover the dead -- marking the houses they searched with an "X" to avoid duplication, said Brig. Gen. Michael Fleming, commander of a Florida unit dispatched to New Orleans. (See video of soldiers aiding recovery -- 3:16)

FEMA set up a temporary morgue in the town of St. Gabriel, about 70 miles west of New Orleans...

Now come the grifters...

If the loss of love ones, their homes, and everything else in their lives was not enough, the vulnerable now face an influx of grifters. At least the grifters made it to the scene more quickly than FEMA, or Vice President Cheney, who finally agreed to cut short his vacation. Perhaps New Orleans took on a new importance of sorts for the V.P. after former Louisiana Senator John Breaux referred to the city as "Baghdad under water." Anything Iraqi, rather than domestic, always draws Cheney's attention.

And Michael Brown, the ever intrepid director of FEMA, is now also apparently on the case! He announced that a "temporary mortuary been set up in St. Gabriel, La, was prepared to receive 500 to 1,000 bodies a day, with refrigeration on site to hold the corpses." He was quoted by the New York Times as saying: "They will be processed as rapidly as possible."

If Brown couldn't display leadership of any kind to save lives, at least he can make sure there is an orderly process in place to assure the handling of the corpses! It is time for all the carping and criticism to end!

Meanwhile, a Washington Post reporter critiques his newspaper's own coverage of Katrina, telling Eric Wemple and Jason Cherkis of the Washington City Paper: "We were late to realize how unbelievably catastrophic this was. We were the FEMA of newspapers on this one."

The Judith Miller/Valerie Plame theory of immaculate conception: The cover story on Salon.com today is a piece on Judith Miller by Joe Strupp, a careful and meticulous senior editor with Editor & Publisher. Linking to my recent story which first disclosed a July 8, 2003 meeting between Miller and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Strupp writes:

More prominently, a recent report that Miller met with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, less than a week before Robert Novak outed former CIA agent Valerie Plame in a 2003 column, has added to the speculation over what role Miller may have played in the leak of Plame's identity. The theory being peddled on the Huffington Post and elsewhere in the lefty blogosphere has Miller not on the receiving end of information from an administration leaker about Plame's identity, but as the one disseminating information about Plame to administration officials. This is just a theory, of course, with no known evidence supporting it. But it's fair to say that many Times staffers want Miller's role in the Plame affair clarified, and some of her Times colleagues are downright angry about what is known, and unknown, about her involvement.

Some long overdue comments on my part: Whatever one thinks of Judith Miller's reporting on Iraq and WMD, it is patently unfair for so many bloggers, Times colleagues (who while condeming her, BTW, who never speak for the record), and others to conclude without any evidence whatsoever that she was "not on the receiving end of information from an administration leaker", but rather "the one disseminating information about Plame to administration officials."

And if "some of her Times colleagues are downright angry about what is known, and unknown, about her involvement," as Strupp reports, it is hardly her fault. She has an obligation to protect a confidential source– one that she is keeping– and which quite likely is the only reason that we do not know as much as we would like to otherwise. But simply the fact that there are "unanswered questions" should not be cause to condemn a woman who is now spending her 44th night in jail.

It is obviously quite possible that as journalists and Bush administration officials spoke to one another in the days just prior to Robert Novak's now infamous column outing Valerie Plame that there was a "circular" flow of information, whereby information and rumors about Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson flowed both ways.

But it is has also been virtually a universal talking point of both those under investigation and the RNC that nobody in the White House could have been guilty of leaking any classified information regarding Valerie Plame because the leakers, quite possibly-- if not likely– originally learned about Plame's work for the CIA from journalists in the first place.

Those on the left who despise Miller because of her WMD reporting, and want to think the very worst of her are playing right into the hands of those who actually leaked the identity of Valerie Plame, and are now covering up how that occurred.

But whatever we ultimately find happened here (and it is unclear that we ever will, despite the dogged efforts of Patrick Fitzgerald) somebody, somewhere in the U.S. government or the Bush administration had to have been the original source of information that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

The information had to originally have come from somewhere!

The baby Jesus may have been born of immaculate conception. The information leaked to Robert Novak and Matthew Cooper and others that Valerie Plame was employed by the CIA had a more earthly origin.

Exclusive: House Democrats ask Justice Inspector General to investigate Ashcroft role in Plame probe

The ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman John Conyers, of Michigan, and Congressman Maurice Hinchey, Democrat of New York, will tomorrow formally request that the Inspector General of the Justice Department, Glenn A. Fine, investigate whether then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft "violated explicit rules on conflicts of interest when he failed to recuse himself from, and in fact was briefed on, the CIA name leak investigation despite his personal connection to Karl Rove, a person of interest to investigators."

The letter to the Justice Department's Inspector General quotes new information from this story which I wrote, and that was posted yesterday on the Village Voice, disclosing new information regarding Ashcroft's role in overseeing the Plame probe, before it was taken over by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. The article disclosed that Ashcroft continued to oversee a probe into the Plame matter even after learning that Karl Rove, who had been a consultant to various Ashcroft political campaigns, was a focus of investigators.

Below is a long excerpt from the letter, which will be made public tomorrow:

[W]e write to request that your Office immediately investigate whether then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft violated explicit rules on conflicts of interest when he failed to recuse himself from, and in fact was briefed on, the CIA name leak investigation despite his personal connection to Karl Rove, a person of interest to investigators. This investigation would not conflict with the investigation by Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald into the actual leak; instead, it would focus on Mr. Ashcroft's failure to recuse himself at the appropriate time in the case. Furthermore, the investigation into the recusal delay would be a logical extension of the request that you also investigate the Department's failure to comply with proper procedures by not ensuring the preservation of document and other evidence connected with the leak.

Early in the Department's investigation of who had leaked a covert CIA operative's identity to the media, it became clear that Karl Rove, a senior advisor to the President, was receiving public attention as someone who may have been involved in the crime. We have now learned that, according to law enforcement officials close to the investigation, Mr. Rove failed to disclose to the FBI that he had ever spoken with Time's Matthew Cooper, a reporter involved in the case. These officials also have indicated that then-Attorney General Ashcroft was personally and privately briefed on the Rove interview.

These new disclosures are troubling because, at the time of these events, Mr. Ashcroft had known personal and political connections to Mr. Rove. Mr. Rove was an adviser to Mr. Ashcroft during the latter's political campaigns, earning almost $750,000 for his services. Mr. Rove also had urged the President to nominate Mr. Ashcroft to be Attorney General after Mr. Ashcroft lost his Senate re-election campaign to the deceased Mel Carnahan. The fact that Mr. Ashcroft eventually recused himself demonstrates that there in fact were conflicts of interest with his continued involvement in the investigation. The fact that he did not recuse himself early on and was briefed on the matter may well have violated ethical rules and guidelines.

Existing law and rules of professional conduct govern when Department attorneys must recuse themselves from particular investigations. Federal law requires the Attorney General to promulgate rules mandating the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Justice Department "from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof." Pursuant to this requirement, the Department has promulgated regulations stating that:

no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with: (1) any person . . . substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or (2) any person . . . which he knows or has a specific and substantial interest that would be affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

In this case, Mr. Ashcroft would have been prohibited from involvement in the leak investigation under both provisions. His relationships with the President and Mr. Rove consists of both personal and political connections with individuals who might have been the investigation's subjects. At a minimum, his friend, Mr. Rove, had a "specific and substantial interest that would be affected by the outcome" in that his entire political legacy would be tarnished if he were implicated in the leak.

To reiterate the importance of preventing conflicts of interest, the Justice Department has further explicated the guidelines in its U.S. Attorneys' Manual. The Attorneys' Manual provides that:

When United States Attorneys, or their offices, become aware of an issue that could require a recusal in a criminal or civil matter or case as a result of a personal interest or professional relationship with parties involved in the matter, they must contact General Counsel's Office... The requirement of recusal does not arise in every instance, but only where a conflict of interest exists or there is an appearance of a conflict of interest or loss of impartiality.

In the leak investigation, Mr. Ashcroft clearly had a professional relationship with a party involved the matter. His failure to have recused himself earlier may have been an instance of "too little, too late," as the conflict may have impeded the investigation.

Furthermore, rules of professional conduct bar lawyers such as Mr. Ashcroft from matters in which they have conflicts of interest. Because Department attorneys must follow the ethical rules of the bar in which they practice, as an official at Main Justice he would have been obligated to comply with the District of Columbia Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct. These Rules state that, without consent, a lawyer shall not represent a client if "the lawyer's professional judgment on behalf of the client will be or reasonably may be adversely affected by the lawyer's responsibilities to or interests in a third party or the lawyer's own financial, business, property, or personal interests." In the instant situation, Mr. Ashcroft clearly had a personal connection to Mr. Rove that would have interfered with proper oversight of the case.

We look forward to hearing whether you will open such an investigation and, if not, the reason for your decision.

More Fitzgerald, Rove, and Plame news...

A few minutes ago, the Village Voice posted on its website my latest story on the special prosecutor's investigation of the Valerie Plame affair. Hopefully, the story offers the most detailed explanation to date as to why in late Dec. 2003, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from further involvement in the case, and also allowed for the appointment of Patrick J. Fitzgerald as the special prosecutor who would take over the matter.

For those looking as to what might lie ahead, readers might want to take special notice as to what Rep. John Conyers, of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary committee, and the former chairman of the committee, had to say in reaction to the story's new disclosures:

There has long been the appearance of impropriety in... Ashcroft's handling of this investigation. The former Attorney General had well documented conflicts of interest in this matter, particularly with regard to his personal relationship with Karl Rove. Among other things, Rove was employed by Ashcroft throughout his political career, and Rove reportedly had fiercely advocated for Ashcroft's appointment as Attorney General. Pursuant to standard rules of legal ethics, and explicit rules on conflict of interest, those facts alone should have dictated his immediate recusal...

The new information, that Ashcroft had not only refused to recuse himself over a period of months, but also was insisting on being personal briefed about a matter implicating his friend, Karl Rove, represents a stunning ethical breach that cries out for an immediate investigation by the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General.

If Conyers and other House Democrats are indeed able to interest either the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility or the Inspector General to commence an official investigation of Ashcroft's conduct, that would be hugely significant. The Justice Department, Fitzgerald, and the Republican majority in the House, have successfully beaten back demands by House Democrats for a congressional investigation of the Plame affair. They have argued that any congressional probe might interfere with Fitzgerald's grand jury probe. But an investigation within the Department of Justice itself-- as to the circumstances of Ashcroft's refusal to recuse himself and as to why he continued to be briefed regularly on the Plame probe even after his friend, Karl Rove became more of a central focus of investigators-- obviously would in no way impinge on anything being done by Fitzgerald.

Both the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and Inspector General, it should be noted, take pride in their independence from those they oversee. It is fully within the range of possibility that either one or both might look into the matter at the request of congressional Democrats.

If I find out more, I will report back.

The fact that Ashcroft continued to be briefed on the Plame probe even though Rove and other of his associates were under investigation was always an aspect of this entire story that I thought was under reported. I wrote about the issue at length in this particular story at the American Prospect. And the New York Times substantied much of what I had written earlier, and even had better and numerous sources than mine. But the Times buried their very own story way on the inside of the paper. Their editorial page was silent. The Washington Post was also no-where to be found. And even, alas, bloggers-- that last vanguard!-- were also silent.

Some final thoughts, based on some information not published in the Voice piece or elsewhere: Why were investigators so skeptical of Rove's claims at even such an early stage of the investigation? As I have previously reported, and others such as the Los Angeles Times and Newsweek have since confirmed, Rove never told investigators of his conversations with Time's Matthew Cooper during his initial FBI interview.

But perhaps even more importantly, Rove also claimed that he first learned about Plame's employment with the CIA-- not from a classified source-- but rather from a journalist.

What has not been previously reported until now (a blog breaks news!?), is that not only could Rove not remember the name of the journalist who purportedly might have told him of Plame's CIA employment, but he also claimed to remember virtually nothing about the circumstances of the purported conversation. He could not even recall whether the conversation took place on the phone or in person.

House Democrats ask that Libby grant Judith Miller a specific waiver to testify.

The ranking Democrats on the House Judiciary and the House Rules Committee, Reps. John Conyers of Ohio and Louise Slaughter of New York, wrote to I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, earlier today dryly noting that his "conduct may have fallen short of the President's pledge to full cooperation" with the investigation of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

The letter was apparently written in reaction to this story I wrote, and which was posted on TAP Online over the weekend, in which I disclosed a meeting between Libby and jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003. The meeting took place prior to the now infamous column by Robert Novak unmasking Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative."

Although Libby has granted a general waiver for journalists to testify before Fitzgerald's grand jury regarding their conversations about Plame, Miller has said she considers such waivers to be inherently coercive. As a result, she refused to testify regarding any conversations with Libby or other Bush administration officials, and has been jailed for more than a month now for civil contempt.

As I reported in my story, Libby has not offered a more specific, personal waiver to Miller, so that she might possibly testify. The letter to Libby also signed by two other Democrats, Rep. Rush Holt, of New Jersey, and Maurice Hinchey of New York, the congresspersons wrote. Below is most of the text of the letter:

As you are aware, in the matter of the ongoing investigation of the leaking of the covert status of a Central Intelligence Agency operative (Valerie Wilson), the President has promised that his Administration will "fully cooperate" with the investigation. We are concerned that your conduct may have fallen far short of the President's pledge of full cooperation. This is particularly important because the President has said he would only fire someone who actually committed a crime; your refusal to waive Ms. Miller's pledge of confidentiality is impeding the full cooperation that could lead to such an administrative sanction. We ask you to rectify this by immediately issuing a personal waiver to New York Times reporter Judith Miller and any other reporter with whom you discussed Mrs. Wilson.

New information has come to light that indicates that you met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, and discussed Mrs. Wilson.... Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reportedly determined that it may well be relevant to the ongoing probe. However, according to the same report, his investigation has been impeded by your lack of cooperation, specifically your failure to produce a personal waiver to Ms. Miller Indeed, in a March 2005 filing with the court hearing the case, Mr. Fitzgerald stated he could not close the matter because of Ms. Miller's inability to testify about conversations with senior government officials. In response to similar concerns expressed by Mr. Fitzgerald about Time reporter Matthew Cooper, Karl Rove, the Deputy White House Chief of Staff, granted a personal waiver to Mr. Cooper. Your failure to grant such a waiver to Ms. Miller has apparently led her to refuse to testify about her conversation(s) with you and, in turn, led to her recent incarceration for civil contempt.

Only your willingness to step forward and permit Ms. Miller to testify about your July 8 meeting and any other communications with her will allow the whole truth to be known. We urge you to immediately and publicly rectify this by issuing a personal waiver to Ms. Miller.

Some comments of my own: As I pointed out in my story, it is still unclear that even if Libby were to grant a more personalized waiver for Miller whether she would testify. Her attorney, Floyd Abrams, told me: "Judith Miller is in jail and at continued jeopardy... I have no comment about what she might do in circumstances that do not now exist."

Tom Maguire has a much more detailed and thoughtful analysis of all of this than I do, for those seeking additional info. Mickey Kaus also has these comments.

Fitzgerald to stay on the job for a long while (and news on other subjects as well)

There has been much discussion in recent days-- including this post by Josh [Marshall] and later postings by friends of Josh's over at his Talking Points Cafe regarding concerns that there might have been, in recent days, an effort afoot to not reappoint Patrick J. Fitzgerald as U.S. Attorney in Chicago, because either prominent Republicans or the White House are upset with his tenacious pursuit of the Plame matter.

No worries.

As Lynn Sweet reports in the Chicago Sun-Times:

It's his call.

Though his term is up this fall, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the aggressive prosecutor who is investigating Mayor Daley's City Hall, possible illegal White House leaks and who has a former Illinois governor awaiting a corruption trial, is in no danger of losing his job.

Fitzgerald's original four-year term expires in a few months, and former Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.), who engineered his appointment (they are not related), is raising a concern the Chicago-based prosecutor may be pressured out.

The former senator said in a WGN-TV interview Wednesday he feared for Patrick Fitzgerald's future because of his pursuit of official corruption...

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was asked about Peter Fitzgerald's concerns Thursday . "I know there [have] been innuendos about my getting pressures. I can tell you nobody has talked to me or called me about this. Anybody. Period,'' Hastert said.

For legal and political reasons, however, it seems it is Patrick Fitzgerald's decision to stay or go. Legally, if President Bush does nothing, he stays on the job even though his term is over. Politically, Bush would face a storm of protest if he fired a man who is investigating his own administration.

Patrick Fitzgerald's White House investigation of the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity is putting him at the doorstep of Bush advisor Karl Rove. His pursuit of criminality in City Hall contracts and hiring is taking him into Daley's inner circle.

Illinois Democratic Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama have been on record since January -- before the White House and City Hall probes heated up -- as wanting Patrick Fitzgerald to stay.

Hastert said Thursday, "My view on this thing, first of all, he was appointed. He serves at the pleasure of the president of the United States. As far as I know, the U.S. attorney general nor the president or anybody else has asked for his resignation. He serves for the duration as far as I'm concerned.''

Durbin spokesman Joe Shoemaker said Thursday Durbin "thinks there is no finer attorney than Patrick Fitzgerald. He is honest and thorough.''

The Chicago Tribune also weighs in with this story.

And Larry Handlin, at Archpundit, provides even more detail and analysis with this post.

This profile of Fitzgerald that appeared in the Baltimore Sun is also useful.

Now this blogger weighs in:

I did speak to the people (at a high up enough level to know these things) at DOJ who say the likelihood of Fitzgerald not being appointed to a second term are between zero and slim.

If any prominent Republican, or Democrat, for that matter, were to lobby the White House that Fitzgerald not be reappointed, the move would appear to be (and might very well be in actuality) a blatantly political maneuver. But there is just no evidence that anything like that has been going on.

The Chicago Sun-Times' Sweet is deadpanning when she writes that "Bush would face a storm of protest if he fired a man who is investigating his own administration." That is akin to saying that Richard Nixon would face a storm of protest if he were to fire Archibald Cox... Oops. Not exactly a great example. Nixon did fire Cox! But we all know that story had a happy ending anyway.

And also very importantly-- Fitzgerald is adored by his bosses. This is what deputy Attorney General James B. Comey had to say when he appointed Fitzgerald as special counsel to investigate the Plame leak. For those who do not want to click on to the transcript of the press conference, Comey said he chose Fitzgerald, who he referred to as his "friend and former colleague", because of his "sterling reputation for integrity and impartiality."

Comey also noted, he had once said that Fitzgerald was "Eliot Ness with a Harvard law degree and a sense of humor."

With comments made like those by the Deputy Attorney General, it would be all but impossible for the White House not to reappoint Fitzgerald, unless the prosecutor himself had something better to do with his life.

In short, don't expect Fitzgerald out anytime soon as U.S. Attorney for Chicago. And also don't expect him to let up anytime soon in his moonlighting role as special counsel for the Plame matter.

In other news: Rich Leiby has this story this morning in the Washington Post regarding the late Edward Von Kloberg's final days. For those who do not recall, Von Kloberg, before his suicide, has been a public relations man for Saddam Hussein, Nicolea Caucescu, and Mobutu Sese Seko.

My favorite anecdote of Rich's story is this one:

Of von Kloberg advising him [his former assistant recalled], during a 1990 trip to Liberia, "My dear boy, you don't take a check from a government that's falling." So they found themselves sprinting for the last flight out of Monrovia with $100 bills stuffed in their shirts. , socks, and underwear, part of a $300,000 retainer from the soon-to-be executed president, Samuel Doe.

My comments: Von Kloberg knew what is important to not only lobbyists for despots, but also any small businessman... and especially a writer! And that is... always get the money up front. (Hope my editors and publishers are not reading this post.)

And as I once wrote about Von Kloberg in this column, while knowing to get his money up front, he also knew to take advantage of what he could get on the back end as well! (Hope my agent is reading this post.) Consider this anecdote from my column:

I was having breakfast with him one morning when one particular client, an African dictator, was deposed from power and met his his violent end. Without skipping a beat, he was on the phone with representatives of the new government to see if he could keep the account.

For the record, I have now written an obituary of Von Kloberg here on my blog, a column about him for Washington Examiner and other newspapers, and finally in a lengthier version of that column on Alternert.org. (I pledge to write no more on this subject.) I may not exactly have the financial common sense of Von Kloberg, but I always know to get paid as many times as possible for the same piece of writing. Thank God my Examiner editor didn't read this blog! (Actually, he did read my first post on the blog on Von Kloberg, and told me to turn in into a column.) And on second thought, I have not yet got my check from the Examiner, or Alternet... and I get paid nuthin' for this blog. Aargh. A last rule for writers: I mentioned my own work here because if a writer doesn't plug their own work, no-one else will... unless if you are Hemingway or something.

And speaking once again of Rich Leiby, according to this report, the Washington Post is about to name his successor to write the Reliable Source column.

Finally, I recommend this posting on the leftcoaster.com by Eriposte about the forged Niger documents that led to the Plame affair.

Comments on Plame and Rove; and more Deep Throat hype

Barry Sussman, who was Bob Woodward's and Carl Bernstein's every day editor on the Watergate story slams them at this post at journalism.org for allegedly misrepresenting the role of Mark Felt in the Post's Watergate reporting. I have been writing much in recent weeks on the same subject, including this post here at my blog, and in a long story at the Village Voice.

Sussman writes: "Deep Throat was nice to have around, but that's about it. His role as a key Watergate source for the Post is a myth created by a movie and sustained here for almost 30 years."

The Washington Post finally takes a shot at trying to break some news regarding Valerie Plame, but falls woefully short. This was the the assessment of the Post "scoop" by Tom Grieve, who writes Salon's exceptional War Room feature:

Sound familiar? That's because the Wall Street Journal ran a similar report earlier this week. The Post fills in a few more details but there's little that is actually news. The Post's piece moves the story forward so incrementally that the notion is almost imperceptible.

So why the A1 treatment? We're guessing that the editors at the Post have had it right to here with the manipulation from the White House, and the front-page play for a not exactly earth-shattering report is a little bit of payback.

My own comments: Len Downie, an editor who is famous for saying he does not vote-- lest anyone question his journalistic objectivity-- would never engage in such conduct! What is actually going on, say sources in the Post's newsroom, is that the Post took to fronting old news-- with an increment so inconsequential that their story hardly constituted "news" at all-- has been largely the result of their having their clock cleaned on this story in recent days by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Bloomberg, and dare I say-- my own stories in the American Prospect.

Downie, and Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward-- the one and same Bob Woodward who took on the White House during Watergate-- have been telling anyone willing to listen to their complaint (a complaint made by a powerful man is always heard more reverently than one made by the rest of us!) that the Plame affair has been much ado about nothing, that the Post has bravely not given into competitive pressures by joining the rest of the journalistic pack, and that if there is real news sometime, they will be the first to publish and crack the case!

Now that that assessment has turned out to have been not particularly accurate, Downie, in attempting to correct his own mistake, has stepped down on the accelerator too hard. The result is that the White House tonight has been using this example tonight of overkill to discredit the reporting of the rest of us covering the Plame affair and breaking new ground on the story.

Plame Game: Cooper tells his side of the story

Matthew Cooper, the Time reporter, who broke his vow to his source and testified to a federal grand jury, this morning also broke his long silence to the public. His magazine ran a cover story on Rove, and Cooper contributed a first person account for Time of his adventure before the federal grand jury. Then he appeared on Meet the Press. Even among those who might support his decision, there can no denying that he has exploited this moment of notoriety for all its worth. But whether one agrees with his decision to testify or not, it is extraordinary to see the Washington media elite give Cooper a pass as to the veracity as to how he came to his decision to identify his sources.

The evidence is clear that Cooper has dissembled and spun his story as to how he came to the point of testifying to the grand jury. On the very day that Cooper was to be held in contempt and sent to jail, he dramatically informed the federal judge about to sentence him, and later a throng of reporters awaiting him outside the courthouse, that only moments earlier he had received a dramatic phone call from his source providing him "an express personal release" to testify.

That source, as we know now, was Karl Rove. But as we also now know, and Cooper later admitted, Rove never actually personally called him that morning. Rather, Cooper's attorney, Richard A. Sauber, called Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, and asked permission from Rove for Cooper to testify. Luskin pointed out that Rove had a year earlier signed a blanket waiver in lieu of a request by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, both Luskin and Sauber now say. Luskin pointedly declined to provide a more specific waiver, only saying that the former one still stood.

Of course, by the time of that telephone conversation, Time magazine had already provided Cooper's emails and notes to prosecutors. And for good measure, someone conveniently leaked Cooper's emails regarding Rove to Newsweek reporter Mike Isikoff. Cooper's sources, by then, of whom Rove was the most important, had already been identified-- not only to the prosecutors, but to the entire world.

Cooper asserted on the courtroom steps on the day of his grand jury testimony, even after all that, he was still willing to go to jail: "[E]ven when Time Incorporated over my objections, handed my notes, my emails to the grand jury, when some of those materials began to leak into the public domain revealing the source, many people.. urged me to testify. They said there was absolutely no confidentiality left to protect."

"Once a journalist makes the commitment of confidentiality, to a source, only the source can end the commitment," Cooper bravely said. He was still willing to go to jail that very morning, saying goodbye to his wife and six year old son, when he learned of his source's dramatic reversal.

The only problem was that the story of the dramatic conversation with Rove and his new waiver was not true.

How convenient how everything has worked out in the end for Cooper: It was his employer, not him, who turned over notes-- and "over his objections". (Of course, Cooper did not resign his job in protest, or even publicly denounce his employer. With a nod and a wink, Cooper even went so far as to call Time's decision "honorable"-- proving once again that being a good corporate citizen is more important to a career in the media than the First amendment.) And after Time provided his notes and emails to the grand jury, what little else there was to discern from his confidential notes was the leaked to his former colleagues at Newsweek.

And then, of course, Cooper received in "dramatic fashion" the phone call from his source the morning of his contempt hearing providing him with the new and "express personal release from my source."

We now know that Cooper's account of the dramatic phone call has turned out not to be true at all.

The issue as to whether Time's and Cooper's capitulation to the prosecutor was right or wrong, there used to be a time when it was considered wrong for a journalist to lie to the public. Apparently no longer.

Plame: Front-page fronts

The Times and Post are publicizing Rove's version of events. But is his story true?

A little while ago, TAP Online posted a story of mine about what is going on with the Plame grand jury. It is an antidote, hopefully, to the accounts in the New York Times and Washington Post, which have done little more recently than tell Rove's side of the story.

Here is the lede to my story:

A federal criminal investigation of the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's name has in large part focused on the truthfulness of statements made to investigators by White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, and whether he worked with others to devise a cover story to conceal his role, according to government officials familiar with the probe.

Columnist Robert D. Novak, who first disclosed Plame's identity in a July 14, 2001 newspaper column, has also been co-operating with investigators for some time, according to the same sources, as I first reported in my blog earlier in the week. But federal investigators have been highly skeptical of Novak's account-- as they have been of Rove's-- and were concerned that the key participants might have devised a cover story in the days shortly after it became known that a criminal investigation has been commenced of the leak.

Novak and Rove have claimed that they discussed Plame during a July 8, 2003 telephone conversation, only days before Novak's column appeared revealing Plame's status. According to Novak's account, it was he, rather than Rove, who first broached the issue of Plame, and that Rove at best simply said he too had heard the same information.

To read the story in its entirety, click here.

Major Plame Exclusive: House Democrats to introduce Resolution of Inquiry on Rove tomorrow morning....

House Democrats tomorrow morning will introduce a formal resolution of inquiry demanding that the Bush administration turn over information and documents relating to Karl Rove and the Valerie Plame affair, according to congressional sources.

Among the members who will be calling for the inquiry are such prominent Democratic Represenatives as Henry Waxman, the ranking minority member of the House Government Reform Committee; Tom Lantos, of California; Leonard Boswell, of Iowa; Anna G. Eshoo, of California; Chris Van Hollen, of Maryland; and Silvestre Reyes, of Texas.

The resolution effort was spareheaded by Rep. Rush Holt, of New Jersey, who is a senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Most importantly, according to one key congressional source, the effort "has the blessing of the Democratic leadership." House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi has signed on to support the effort, sources said.

The resolution of inquiry will seek documents related to the Plame matter from the State, Defense, and Justice Departments, as well as other executive branch agencies. A spokesman for the White House did not return a telephone call tonight seeking comment.

Here are excerpts from a background paper, explaining "resolutions of inquiries", circulating to congressional staff tonight:

A resolution of inquiry "is a simple resolution making a direct request or demand of the President or the head of an executive department to furnished House of Representatives with specific factual information in the possession of the executive branch.

Under House Rule XIII, clause 7, a Member may address a resolution of inquiry "to the head of an executive department."

Resolutions of inquiry have been traditionally directed to the President or to a particular cabinet officer. Under a rule change made by the Republicans at the beginning of this Congress, the Speaker of the House decides as to which committees it will be referred, at which time the Chairman of each Committee on his/her own (or in consultation with the Ranking member) must decide how each Committee will act within the required 14 legislative days.

A resolution of inquiry is usually referred to the committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter, but on a number of occasions two or more committees have been involved in responding to a resolution of inquiry.

After the resolution of inquiry has been introduced and referred to a particular committee, the committee sends the resolution to the Administration for action, requesting a timely response to allow the committee to act within the deadline for a committee report.

The committee then has a variety of options once a resolution of inquiry is referred to it. The committee may hold an up-or-down vote on the resolution, or amend it. It can report favorably or adversely, but an "adverse report" is often times also accompanied by a substantial amount of information prepared by the executive branch.

The quality and quantity of this information can bring the Administration into compliance with the resolution, making further congressional action unnecessary. Usually, a committee issues a report on a resolution of inquiry. If it doesn't, the resolution can then be discharged.

Unlike a normal bill or resolution, the referred committee or committees must report to the House on the resolution, either favorably or adversely, within 14 legislative days of introduction, exclusive of the day of introduction and the day of discharge. If the referred committee does not report the resolution back to the House within 14 legislative days, a Member of the House may raise a motion to discharge the committee from further consideration of the resolution at which point the resolution goes to the House Floor for a vote.

Some additional analysis: One of the things to watch for as the vote proceeds is whether any Republicans break ranks with their party and vote in favor of the resolution. As Dan Froomkin observed earlier today regarding the tepid support for Rove amongst congerssional Republicans: "An awful lot of senior members of Bush's party are sitting this out for now."

One of the reasons that Republican National Committtee Ken Mehlman has been making the rounds of the cable circuit to defend Rove is because so few Republican members of Congress have volunteered to do so.

Exclusive: Novak co-operated with prosecutors (Murray Waas)

THE PUBLIC LIBRARY, Washington D.C.-- Columnist Robert Novak provided detailed accounts to federal prosecutors of his conversations with Bush administration officials who were sources for his controversial July 11, 2003 column identifying Valerie Plame as a clandestine CIA officer, according to attorneys familiar with the matter.

Novak's attorney, James Hamilton, declined to comment earlier this morning. An assistant for Novak told me: "Mr. Novak, per his lawyer's instruction, does not comment on any aspect of that case." Kim Nerheim, a spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating the leak of Plame's name said: "We do not confirm or deny any anything regarding an ongoing investigation."

Novak had claimed to the investigators that the Bush administration officials with whom he spoke did not identify Plame as a covert operative, and that use of the word "operative" was his formulation and not theirs, according to those familiar with Novak's accounts to the investigators.

White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove and at least two other Bush administration officials have told federal investigators that they had spoken to reporters about Plame, but that they did not know at the time that she was a covert operative with the CIA, the same sources told me.

And, as has now been widely reported, an email turned over last week by Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper to investigators shows that Cooper spoke to Rove just prior to Novak's column. The notes indicate that Rove told him that Plame worked for the CIA, and that Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, obtained an assignment from the CIA, on her recommendation, to go to the African nation of Niger to investigate allegations that the then-Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was attempting to covertly purchase uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

When Wilson made known that the Niger allegations were untrue, but were still cited by President Bush to make the case to go to war with Iraq, Rove and other administration officials mounted a campaign to discredit Wilson by claiming that he obtained the assignment only because of his wife.

Robert D. Luskin, an attorney for Rove, has previously told me and others that Rove had never told Cooper, Novak, or others that Plame was a clandestine operative for the CIA. He also has said that the special prosecutor investigating the Plame matter, Patrick Fitzgerald, has repeatedly assured him that Rove is not a target of the federal criminal probe, although a spokesman for Fitzgerald declined to verify that claim.

Reached last night at home, Luskin said he would neither confirm or deny that his client, Rove, ever spoke to Novak about Plame: "That particular question is not something I want to address at this point," he said.

Federal investigators have been skeptical of Novak's assertions that he referred to Plame as a CIA "operative" due to his own error, instead of having been explicitly told that was the case by his sources, according to attorneys familiar with the criminal probe.

That skepticism has been one of several reasons that the special prosecutor has pressed so hard for the testimony of Time magazine's Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

In the email that Cooper turned over to federal investigators, Rove was quoted as saying that Plame worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues, but it was not dispositive as to whether she was a covert officer or an analyst. That is why the testimony of Cooper and the information already provided by Novak has been central to the criminal investigation. For a violation of law to be prosecutable, the information provided to Novak and other journalists must have been provided with the express intent of exposing a clandestine officer.

Cooper is scheduled to soon testify before the federal grand jury investigating the matter, perhaps even as early as tomorrow morning, sources said.

Also of interest to investigators have been a series of telephone contacts between Novak and Rove, and other White House officials, in the days just after press reports first disclosed the existence of a federal criminal investigation as to who leaked Plame's identity. Investigators have been concerned that Novak and his sources might have conceived or co-ordinated a cover story to disguise the nature of their conversations. That concern was a reason-- although only one of many-- that led prosecutors to press for the testimony of Cooper and Miller, sources said.

Lending credence to those suspicions was that a U.S. government official questioned by investigators said Novak specifically asked him whether Plame had some covert status with the CIA. The official told investigators that Novak appeared uncertain whether she was undercover or not. That account, on one hand, might lend credence to the claims by Rove and other Bush administration officials that they did not know Plame was a covert CIA officer. Conversely, however, the fact that Novak asked the question in the first place appeared to indicate that he might have indeed been told Plame was a covert operative, and was seeking confirmation of that fact.

Whatever the outcome of the criminal case, the political fallout to the Bush administration continues. On Sept. 16, 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan, characterized as "totally ridiculous" allegations that Rove had discussed Plame with reporters. On Sept. 29 of the same year, McClellan said: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

In the last few days, many Democrats were calling on the President to make good on his word. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who only last year was his party's nominee for President, said that Rove "has to go." The White House has declined to comment for the second day in a row regarding Rove's conversations with reporters, citing the ongoing criminal investigation.

Note to my several readers: I recently moved to a new home, and the Comcast guy can only get out on Wednesday to give me Internet access again. So I have blogged this post from the public library! Also special thanks to Sonya Bernhardt, the publisher of the Georgetowner newspaper, for later lending me not only her laptop-- but office as well-- to complete this posting. Note to my several friends: I might be borrowing your laptops for a few minutes between now and then. Unlike major media corporations with their tremendous resources and budgets, I have no laptop of my own. Indeed, unlike most bloggers with their tremendous resources, I have no laptop of my own. Indeed, unlike, well-- most 18 and 19 year old college students today, I don't have a laptop! (All that I actually have are my old school reporting skills and the public library!... and maybe a few good sources here and there. Apparently, those count for something.)

Because I cannot report that much about this during the next couple of days, I recommend that my many readers turn to Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing blog at the Washington Post. His analysis yesterday on recent developments is the most thorough on the Internet.

First update: I do agree with many readers that it is quite lame that I have no laptop, and I pledge to get one very soon (when my readers start paying me, that is.) I will update this post in more substantive ways when I have Internet access again!