Posted on 10/27/2001 6:06:56 AM PDT by CommiesOut
| October 26, 2001 White House, Pentagon livid about leakers By Alexis Simendinger, National Journal This was the week in which President Bush’s wartime information challenges suddenly looked more formidable. At one podium, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spent more time railing against anonymous Pentagon employees who spoke freely with reporters than he did giving those same reporters useful information about the nature of military action in Afghanistan as it shifted from air to ground. At another podium hours later, Tom Ridge, the new homeland security director, and an array of anxious government officials strained to resolve questions about evolving anthrax science, the hunt for faceless murderers, and the extent of an unprecedented threat. Bush may be fighting the first war of the 21st century, but he is also shadowboxing with some old enemies at home. How much information is too much? Two U.S. servicemen died in a helicopter crash in Pakistan, but the Pentagon left details scarce. Two U.S. Postal Service workers died after inhaling anthrax spores in Washington, and the administration produced information to counteract rising alarm that danger loomed just a postage stamp away. The President’s recent fuming about leakers in Congress, which prompted him to briefly attempt to limit the number of lawmakers privy to classified briefings, centered on his assertion that secrecy in the assault against terror would save U.S. lives. One issue debated this week was whether enough information was given to postal employees to protect their lives. In a long war, which Bush has promised, the administration’s concentration on secrecy, on the one hand, and the public’s expectations of fuller disclosure, on the other, are both likely to intensify. It is, it seems obvious to say, an uneasy tension. Rumsfeld, in particular, sounded this week as if Bush’s battle was being waged as much inside the Pentagon as outside it. Knowing full well that a patriotic citizenry sides with its commander in chief, he complained in front of the television cameras that information anonymously disclosed to The Washington Post and other media outlets jeopardized clandestine military operations, to the benefit of the enemy. “I think that the release by a person in the government who had access to classified information ... clearly was a violation of federal criminal law, and second, it was something that was totally in disregard for the lives of the people involved in that operation,” the Defense Secretary said on October 22. “I couldn’t care less where the source of the leak is; the responsibility is the same. It puts people’s lives at risk, and it’s just terrible.” Rumsfeld admonished reporters: “How the press handles this new conflict will also contribute to the success of it.” How the administration handles the truth about its new kind of war is surely the more important burden. Some old lessons still hold true. First, nonsanctioned disclosures of government information are a fact of life for all administrations; and, second, all Presidents hate leaks. Bush’s desire to control information about his assault on terrorism is not novel. What is important is how far his administration decides to go to keep its confidences, believing it knows best about the public’s right to know. John F. Kennedy in 1962 was so concerned with disclosures to The New York Times about Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles that he briefly weighed Clark Clifford’s suggestion to establish a CIA unit to investigate journalists. Lyndon Johnson so despised leaks to the media that he once switched his choice of an appointee because The New York Times stole his surprise, and he discouraged memorandums from advisers on sensitive matters because he feared the memos would find their way into print. An obsession with information funneled to reporters was, of course, part of Richard Nixon’s undoing. Ronald Reagan at one point considered imposing a blanket ban on all background and off-the-record interviews, and he approved an executive order requiring federal officials to get White House clearance before talking to the media about national security matters. George H.W. Bush believed leaking was the height of disloyalty, and he launched internal probes on more than one occasion to identify culprits in hopes of firing them. One such investigation, which involved copies of documents slightly altered to trace routes into journalists’ hands, eventually revealed that Bush’s own budget director, Richard Darman, was a leaker. He kept his job. Bill Clinton “was in a rage,” former White House press secretary Jake Siewert recalls, when internal deliberations about ground troops in Bosnia made their way into the press. “He would tell [National Security Adviser] Sandy [Berger] to ‘find out who this was, and stop them!’ “ Siewert said, “but it was always a fruitless task.” When the pressure is on, there is always an instinct in any administration to tighten the circle of those close to important information while still appearing to the public to be forthright. The smaller circle satisfies the need for control, but does nothing about the appetite for candor, or the tendency in Washington for frustrated policy makers shut out of the circle to drop their advice on the President’s desk via a newspaper. To hear White House officials tell it, the federal government has everything under control; the bureaucracy is coordinating smoothly and responding appropriately; the President has not lost sleep or changed his routine; and victory is certain. All of those assertions, without any partisan overlay, are suspect. If candor about what the United States doesn’t know, about presidential worries and perceived risks, and about how and why decisions are made comes from anonymous truth-tellers rather than from government podiums, Americans should be relieved. And the administration should be forewarned.
|
We are today an information society and the news is right at our finger tips and I think this is where people get frustrated as we are getting mixed signals.
Anthrax is such a clear case of this, as for the pentagon I think there will always be leaks for that matter with gov't as large as it is today it's a given.
I believe it will be a tough going for the President especially here on the homefront if we the public aren't told the truth about: Anthrax, suit case nukes, food supply, small pox, ebola etc.JMO
I will tell you right out. I don't see a lot of indication that the warriors are running this operation. I suspect Rumsfeld with his appeal to the public for ideas is having exactly the same frustration. Why should this come as any shock or surprise to you. After 8 years of Clinton I would guess that they are awfully hard to find - particularly in high-level positions as we have all discussed around here. Point two in this line is that up to this point Bush has not been filling second tier jobs at a lightning pace.
Since it is my money and my country I have a right to know that it is being defended wisely. In fact, I might even be able to help. One of the dirty little secrets of democracy is that the concerted efforts of 250 Million people each doing their part as they best see it works a whole lot better than a few tired old junkyard dogs who won the promotion battles at the top running everything. It is like everyone around here says - America's most sensitive secrets are on display at the National Archives.
And I don't need a lot of patronizing whining about the necessity of protecting intelligence and military operations. There are too many folks around here, me included, who have been there and done that, and the thesis behind the Pentagon Papers case was correct - classification is too frequently used to cover up the political consequences of incompetence. Genuine military secrets are few and far between and usually of the kind about pending operations or intelligence methods. But not telling us what we know the enemy knows is stupid.
Public information is always key to winning a war. President Roosevelt knew that and so did President Bush Senior.
William Kristol, special assistant undersecretary for Middle East war planning and World War III?
The media, armed with dollars, is fighting its own war in Afghanistan
Thank You as you say 'FReepers'!
My sense is that intelligent private citizens - alert to what is going on by certain racially profiled groups - are doing far more for counter terrorism than anything that the FBI and CIA can do. Go figure. There are 280 Million of us out on the streets and at best 20,000 of them on the streets - a 10,000 to one advantage in numbers which has to count for something despite the overwhelming advantage in intelligence, competence, training and forensic sophistication of your average FBI agent.
From what I've seen on other threads, it is quite likely that Haq was playing both sides, making his loss not a screwup but neutral at worst and likely a positive thing.
Are you saying that during WWII FDR let the American people in on troop deployments and missions before the fact?
You want to know everything so you can help or so you can second guess the actions of others? We don't have to know everything to be alert and suspicious - maybe an ordinary citizen will be the one to notice suspicious activity that does stop the next terrorist attack. That would be great.
I agree that the American people need to know how serious small pox could be and that the federal govenment should be taking all steps to secure enough vaccine to protect us. (This is something that I believe GWB is already doing.) Should we know where this vaccine is coming from etc.? Oh, right, why not give the bad guys more targets.
As for suitcase nukes, how would it be useful for you to know anything more than that they exist and that the Winter Olympics and the Super Bowl could be likely targets? Are you going to ferret them out and destroy them? I wish you could.
I haven't a clue about the suitcase nuke scenario. If it were real, however, 280,000,000 Americans on the look-out are probably a lot more effective than the handful of G-men, however skilled and competent. Disarming, etc. is a different matter, but the very small handful of guys who specialise in that aren't going to go out and find the bomb either, and would appreciate some help in that direction.
I am sickened by the lack of patriotism by the media, the selfish "me first" attitude. Fortunately, the American people know that it's not just endangering the military this time, it's OUR lives that they are risking. If they continue, they're going to find themselves confronting a bunch of Americans carrying buckets of hot tar and feather pillows.
And just how do you handle the fact we have enemies that read this information also? We have enemies of the U.S. in any number of groups in our government. Just how does letting all the enemies know of your war information help win a war? Looks like it would help the enemy win that war and kill our military. Guess I'm just not seeing that the hearer of all this confidential information truly needs it so that they - instead of our military men - can know where to go kill the enemy.
Or could it possibly be that these hearers are just nosy and want to "discuss" what they would do? Why that is sure worthy of a few lives isn't it. Just explain that to a soldier's wife and children.
Taking the discussion on a bit of a tangent, Bob Woodward is a lot more of an "insider" than he lets on. Not that that inspires confidence. http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr196-woodward.html
From the January-February, 1996 issue [Probe] (Vol. 3 No. 2)
Bob Woodward
By Lisa Pease
Robert Upshur Woodward rose from obscure reporter working for the Washington Post to become one of the most famous journalists of recent times for his role, with that of Carl Bernstein, in "breaking" the Watergate story. Together, "Woodstein" broke one of the biggest news stories of all time: a chain of abuse by the Executive office of the Presidency that led to calls for impeachment, and the eventual resignation, of President Richard Nixon.
Immortalized by Robert Redford in the movie based on the book All the President's Men, the real Woodward is quite an enigma. Adrian Havill, in his recent book Deep Truth, presents the most comprehensive biography to date of both Woodward and Bernstein. He also details some of the fabrications that passed for nonfiction in the book from which the film was based. Most importantly, he gives us a great wealth of background on who Woodward really is, where he comes from, and what his connections are.
A Yalie and a Secret Society Member
The staunchly conservative Bob Woodward grew up in Wheaton, Illinois. A good student at Yale, he was ultimately one of fifteen seniors "tapped" for one of that university's secret societies, Book and Snake, a cut below the more infamous Skull and Bones, but the top of the second-tier fraternities. Woodward had his first journalistic experience working for the Banner, a Yale publication. In his 1965 yearbook he was referred to as a "Banner mogul." Havill writes,
Certainly, with the CIA encouraged to recruit on the Yale campus, particularly among history majors and secret societies, it is more than reasonable to assume Bob may have been one of those approached by the agency, or by a military intelligence unit, especially after four years of naval ROTC training. Although it would answer a lot of questions that have been raised about Bob Woodward, at this point one can only speculate as to whether he was offered the chance to become a "double-wallet guy," as CIA agents who have two identities are dubbed. It would certainly be understandable if he decided not to adhere to the straight and accepted the submerged patriotic glamour and extra funds that such a relationship would provide. It would also explain the comments of Pulitzer Prize-winning author J. Anthony Lukas, when he wrote in 1989 that Bob Woodward was "temperamentally secretive, loathe to volunteer information about himself," or the Washingtonian's remarks in 1987: "He is secretive about everything." As Esquire magazine put it, summing up in its 1992 article on Bob, "What is he hiding?"
The "Floating Pentagon" Assignment
Three days after graduating from Yale, Woodward was sent by the U.S. Navy to Norfolk, Virginia, where he was commissioned as an ensign by none other than U.S. Senator George Smathers from Florida. Bob's assignment was to a very special ship, called a "floating Pentagon," the U.S.S. Wright. The ship was a National Emergency Command Ship-a place where a President and cabinet could preside from in the event of a nuclear war. It had elaborate and sophisticated communications and data processing capabilities. It had a smaller replica of the war room at the Pentagon. It ran under what was called SIOP-Single Integrated Operation Plan. For example, in the event of nuclear war, the Wright was third in line to take full command if the two ahead of it, the Strategic Air Command in Omaha (SAC) and NORAD, were rendered incommunicado. Woodward-straightfacedly-told authors Colodny and Gettlin (Silent Coup) that he guessed he was picked for the ship because he had been a radio ham as a kid.
Aboard the Wright, Woodward had top secret "crypto" clearance-the same clearance researcher Harold Weisberg found had been assigned to Lee Harvey Oswald when he was himself in the Marines. Such clearance in Woodward's case gave him full access to nearly all classified materials and codes on the ship. Woodward also ran the ship's newspaper. Woodward has insisted that possessing a high security clearance is not necessarily indicative of intelligence work.
The Wright carried men from each of the military services, as well as CIA personnel. One of Havill's government sources reported that the CIA would likely have had additional informants on a ship of such sensitivity, adding that "the rivalry between the services was intense."
After a two and a half year stint on the Wright, Woodward was assigned to go to Vietnam. Woodward wrote the Pentagon asking to serve on a destroyer. The wish was granted. One naval captain told Havill that it seemed reasonable Woodward would have a little pull from his previous duty to avoid getting assigned to Vietnam. Another former naval officer disputed that, saying "Nobody got out of going to Vietnam in 1968." But Woodward did. He was stationed aboard the U.S.S. Fox, based in Southern California. The personnel on board the Fox included an intelligence team, many of whom had studied Russian and Asian languages at the famous armed services language school in Monterey, California.
By 1968, Woodward ran the ship's radio team. In 1969, Woodward was awarded the Navy Commendation Medal for his communications work. From there, Woodward moved on to a Pentagon assignment, a job that included briefing top officers in the government. Admiral Thomas Moorer and former secretary of defense Melvin Laird are both on record noting that Woodward briefed Al Haig at the White House during this period. What is suspicious is Woodward's semi-admittance to Hougan that he had done some briefing, and his complete denial to Colodny and Gettlin that he had ever briefed anyone at the White House. Havill notes:
Considering the evidence, Bob Woodward's denial more strongly suggests intelligence than it does his uninvolvement in White House briefings. Woodward's secrecy about his past, his choice of associates, and what is known of his activities caused Havill to write:
The question, then, begs itself once more. Was Bob Woodward ever a free-lance or retained Central Intelligence Agency liaison officer, informant or operative . . . ? This author got various forms of affirmative opinions from intelligence experts. It would explain his assignment to the Wright and his misleading statements to interviewers. It would make understandable his being able to get out of going to Vietnam in 1968, his extension for an additional year at the Pentagon, his being chosen to brief at the White House and his denials as well. It would also help explain his subsequent high-level friendships with leaders of the U.S. military and the CIA. It would also explain the role Woodward and Bernstein wittingly or unwittingly played in keeping the CIA's nose clean while making sure the world saw the President's nose was dirty.
The Legacy of Deep Throat
Whatever his background, whatever his connections, one cannot trust what Woodward says as fact. Take, for instance, his account in Veil of his last interview with dying CIA Director William Casey. Havill tracked down Casey's family, friends, hospital security staff and CIA guardians and found that the visit Woodward described was impossible. First of all, Casey was under 24 hour guard by several layers of security: CIA members, hospital security, and Casey's family. And Woodward had already been stopped once while trying to see Casey. According to one of Havill's sources, Woodward was not merely asked to leave, as Woodward reported in his book, but was forcibly shoved into the elevator. And Woodward's story kept shifting. Woodward told a Knight-Ridder reporter that he had gotten in by flashing his press pass. To Larry King, Woodward claimed he just "walked in." But even assuming he somehow managed to get by all of that security, Woodward would still have been the only person to claim that Casey had uttered intelligible words in those last hours. The only other person to make such a claim was Robert Gates, who himself became CIA Director. The family, doctor and medical staff said Casey could not make words at this point, only noises. At least Gates questioned whether he might have been imagining he heard words. Woodward has never retracted his "conversation." In addition, Woodward once said that Casey sat bolt upright, which would seem highly implausible given his rapidly deteriorating state. Onetime CIA Director Stansfield Turner, a friend of Woodward's since 1966, said Woodward told him he'd walked by Casey's room and Casey had waved to him. Casey's bed was positioned in such a way in the room as to make that impossible too.
Likewise, Woodward does not seem to demand authenticity from subordinates. Under his watch as Assistant Managing Editor of the Metro desk, the Post suffered a humiliation of the highest proportions at the hands of one of his hires, Janet Cooke. It was this incident that knocked the Post from its perch as "America's leading newspaper," as it had been called in the wake of its Watergate reporting.
Janet Cooke was a gifted writer with a knack for capturing the essence of the streets of D.C. She went to the Post for a job, and Woodward hired her. More illustrator than reporter, she painted vivid images, if not entirely accurate ones. The latter trait soon brought her trouble.
Cooke's crowning glory-and worst disaster-was a story called "Jimmy's World," about an eight year old heroin addict. The story brought both praise and outrage: praise for the vivid writing, outrage that a reporter could just stand by and watch a kid taking drugs. The controversial story managed to earn a Pulitzer, but only after some arm twisting by the committee head, who overruled the committee's first choice for the prizewinner to pick "Jimmy's World." Some of the committee members hadn't even read the story, but not wanting to appear divisive, they stood together, for better or for worse. Made bold by the award, Janet Cooke's fabrications grew even larger and more personal. She started making up a history for herself that she didn't possess, including training in languages she couldn't speak. Several at the Post, including Woodward, were worried that her story of Jimmy may not be true. They pressured Cooke to produce "Jimmy." Losing the battle to protect her source, it rapidly became clear that she had no source. There was no Jimmy. And for the first time ever, a Pulitzer was returned. The Post was thoroughly embarrassed by a woman under Woodward's direct supervision at the paper.
But Woodward's most stunning deceptions come from the work that launched his career, his tracking of the Watergate story as retold in the supposedly nonfiction work All the President's Men. Adrian Havill found curious discrepancies between accountings of incidents as reported in the book, and the rest of the available facts (see sidebar at right).
Given his role in the Watergate cover-up, and the misrepresentations in his own work, it remains to us a huge mystery why this man is treated with the reverence he is. Considering his behavior, his background, his credibility, and his connections, we now feel compelled to join Adrian Havill in asking who is Bob Woodward? Whom does he serve? Is his career sustained for the purposes of those with a "secret agenda"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All materials within Copyright © 2000 to CTKA. Do not republish or copy this material in any form, electronic or otherwise, without written permission from CTKA. Home | All Articles | Action Alerts | About CTKA
"You won't give me what I want -- so I'm going to try to turn the public against you. Let's see how long you can hold out against that, you Wascally Wepublicans."
How much more self serving, arrogant and ignorant can you get? We're endangering our internal and external defense if we publicize too much information. We're endangering our internal and external defense by turning the "non-thinkers" against the current war on our way of life.
No American way of life = no need for pinko journalists (well, no need anyway -- but no tolerance for their chicanery).
What about this don't they understand?
I would consider whoever reveals the Senator's name as doing his patriotic duty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.