Letter From The Capitol

CIA Tapes: (Thankfully) Not Wilson/Plame II

My recent CIA tapes posting compared the situation to that with Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, in which a special counsel, not working at the Justice Department, was hired.  Such prosecutors have a single-case agenda, and thus little incentive to exercise discretion to decline to prosecute an offense.  This Wall Street Journal editorial makes clear that the prosecutor, John Dunham, is a career Justice Department employee, and thus answerable to the Attorney-General, and the Department's priorities, in a way that outside special counsels are not.  The prospect of a runaway investigation are thus lessened.  It could still wind up a big mess, but there is at least a chance that it does not turn into one.

Alan, Not Cindy, After All

It seems I jumped the gun yesterday in reporting that Alan Greenspan said in his just-released memoirs that Bush went to war for oil, implying 43 lied.  Greenspan now says his passage was misinterpreted.  Upon seeing it on a TV screen, I have concluded it was.  He believes the Iraq War is ultimately about oil, but did not intend to accuse 43 of lying.  My apologies to Mr. Alan (Not Cindy) Greenspan.

LFTC Correction Re Bush Energy Posting

My 1/29/07 posting on Bush's energy plan contained a statistic on rising US oil imports that was posted originally as rising oil consumption.  The increase from 34.8 to 60.3 percent was in oil imports.  Thanks to an alert LFTC reader for informing me.

Ford & New York: Felix Corrects LFTC

Having finished 2006 with a rare "Oops!" it seems LFTC stepped in it on the very first article posted in 2007, LFTC's 1/3 tribute to former President Ford.  As Felix Rohatyn, the prominent investment backer who helped save NYC then, recalls , Ford did eventually extend credit, as part of a federal, state and private market financial reform package.  His article details the tumultuous events of 1975, and merits a read.

Pinochet: No Model, He

An attentive LFTC reader called to my attention a perspective on the late Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, that calls into question my own prior postings on Pinochet.  It seems I overlooked some important arguments: (1) as of September 1973 the democratic opposition to Allende's economic mismanagement had by no means exhausted its options; (2) Allende was not yet in a strong enough position to seize dictatorial power; (3) the 3,200 killed--out of 15 million population, the per capita equivalent of 64,000 killed in a country with America's 300 million--do not include thousands tortured; (4) Pinochet's economic policies were mixed--an overvalued currency, converting foreign private debt into public debt and massive corruption, tainted his achievements; (5) thuggish leaders like Russia's Vladimir Putin justify their repression by citing Pinochet.  Also of note, albeit not mentioned in the article but vouchsafed to me credibly, is that Pinochet didn't initially step down after the referendum on his rule, but rather tried to stay on and had to be pushed out by pressure from his fellow Chileans and international pressure as well, including by the United States.

All fair enough.  LFTC remains resolute, however, in preferring, on a lesser of evils basis, a Pinochet to a Castro; if post-Fidel Cuba is to be saved it will be by Miami's Cuban community, not Raul Castro.  In today's Mideast, a Pinochet is preferable, on the same basis, to the Islamofascist rulers of places like Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Not only was Pinochet, while brutal, less repressive than Islamist rulers; he never sought to export revolution worldwide.  But LFTC will concede that AP is not worthy of being chosen as a model for leadership.  Thanks again to an alert, informed LFTC reader for the input.

Correction on Kofi

On 12/13 I posted my comments on Kofi Annan's pathetic attack on American policy.  I stated therein that in the 1990s he had been responsible for human rights policy at the UN.  In fact, his specific responsibility was to supervise peacekeeping operations.  It was in the latter capacity that Annan ignored appeals from his field generals to stop genocide.

NYC: Transit Contract Not Settled

The first OOPS! of 2006 by LFTC: Contrary to my 4/24 entry on the wrist-slap given the NYC transit workers for their illegal XMAS walkout, no contract is currently in effect.  The union membership did a re-vote that approved the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's pre-XMAS contract offer--a very generous one, but MTA chairman Peter Kalikow says that the MTA's position is that the original rejection "voided" the contract, and none is yet on the table.  In response to union threats of a targeted slowdown if the contract is not approved soon, Kalikow replied: "They have no right to push that deal, in its exact form, down our throat."  A state panel has accepted the MTA's position for binding arbitration.  I regret the error.  Stay tuned.

FISA Exceptions: Corrected Citation

On Monday Dec. 19 I reported on a Jed Babbin article on TAS that talked about when the Attorney-General and President can bypass court approval under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).  I said that the FISA statute has twin exceptions.  There are indeed such exceptions, but they are not found in the language of the law itself.  Rather, as provided in a declassified version of a still-secret document, an NSA regulation sets them forth.  Babbin explained Monday in his TAS piece:

"The regulations implementing FISA clarify the law's exceptions to the requirements for a FISA court warrant. U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive, dated July 27, 1993, is the primary regulation governing NSA's operations. It is a secret document. (We at TAS, unlike the NYT, never, ever, disclose government secrets that may damage national security. What follows is taken from a declassified version obtained from an open source.)

"Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court is obtained; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to 'communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications' and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting 'significant foreign intelligence information.'

"USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies 'when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security.'

"So FISA itself and USSID 18 provide a lot of swinging room for what the president ordered. If the people subjected to the intelligence gathering weren't 'U.S. persons,' if Attorney General Gonzales made certain findings (which he did, according to several accounts) and if the NSA went ahead because it reasonably believed it would lose significant foreign intelligence if it held its hand, the operation is legal. Period."

My apologies to LFTC readers for any inconvenience caused them--or anyone they may have passed my gaffe on to--by this error.  Here again is the full 12/19/05 TAS link.
Babbin: 43 Acted Legally

Index 9/30/05

5 postings: (1) E = mc what????--"It's the Earth, Stupid!"; (2) Judge-Made Wartime Porn--Weenie Watch; (3) Waylaying DeLay--The Home Front; (4) Iraq: Culture Counts Everywhere--Us v. Them; (5) 20,000 Leagues To A Wrong Turn--OOPS!.

20,000 Leagues To A Wrong Turn

One faithful blog reader, Father Vincent J. Rigdon, a man of wisdom and grace whom I have been privileged to know for over 35 years, was kind enough to point out, as to my 9/28 posting (Captain Nemo, Call Your Office) that Jules Verne's fictional submarine did not travel 20,000 leagues deep, but rather that was total horizontal cruising distance.  Vince, more scholarly on this subject than I, not only saw the movie but read the book, and saw an illustration at the end that revealed this.  To Vince, my thanks; to readers, my apologies.