Long Year at MSG

It's going to be a long (and that's not good) year for the New York Knickerbockers. When coach/GM Isiah Thomas is complaining about the criticism of a former Knick, Greg Anthony, about who they selected in the draft -- you know someone has a thin skin.

Again, it's going to be a long year -- but don't expect Isiah Thomas to be there at the end.

(In fact, it's going to be a long time before the Knicks start winning until their owners -- the Dolan family -- realizes it should have stayed in the monopolistic world of cable TV and not the competitive field of professional basketball.)

Help for Katie -- and the viewers

After the hype and the curiosity seekers (me included) viewed the first week of shows, the CBS betwork's news broadcast is back in third place. (I could have done that at 1/15 of what Ms. Couric is making.) I thought it was a wee-bit fluffy for my liking and I particularly didn't care to hear that she had daughters and was therefore curious about a vaccine for cervical cancer. One critic gives her a few months to right the ship, another thinks she'll have five years to get on top. Not that I was asked to provide free advice, but here goes:

• Can the gimmicks, er features. The freeSpeech segment is lame. John Chancellor, after he gave up the anchor chair at NBC News, provided engaging commentary every few days. In today's overheated partisan environment perhaps a number of commentators across the political spectrum can provide analysis of the day's events throughout the week.
  
• Hard news. It seems that all of the network news operators watch the cable outlets and assume that their viewers have too. (If they did, they wouldn't be watching!) What's wrong with providing a daily summary of what happened during the day? I stopped watching network news when it became obvious that after ten minutes they went into canned features. After hearing Robert Bazell of NBC News talk about some wonder drug "still being tested but looks promising" for the hundreth time -- I stopped watching.
  
• Focus outside Washington. What I find frustrating, and I don't think I'm alone, is the coverage of national news. It seems to be the Republicans and Democrats are trying to score points at the other's expense -- rather than leading -- during the daily news cycle. How is the public bettered? If they haven't done anything in DC other than call each other names -- drop it.
• Teasers. You've got 22 minutes, make the most of it. Don't tell me what's coming up next -- I expect it to be news.
  

The suits at CBS decided to spend a fortune on Ms. Couric with a big advertising scheme -- her mug is plastered on every bus in NYC. This is a by-gone 1970's approach. (Recall when Ms. Barbara Walters also bolted from the Today program to co-anchor ABC's nightly news show?) Rather than focusing on who provides the news, the network (and the viewers) would have been better served by a focus on what is making news.

Attack on the Embassy

According to media reports, there was an attempted attack on the US Embassy in Damascus, Syria today (12 September). It's getting to the point now where you can't even trust the authoritarian regimes to keep the peace.

Various reports suggest about four attackers -- who have either been killed or captured -- were involved. (If it's the latter, it's only a matter of time before the survivors meet Allah -- undoubtedly on the EZ Pass expressway.) Apparently, the intent was to detonate explosives in a van, in an effort to breach the Embassy's perimeter wall. Then, they were to attack the embassy with small arms fire. File this under poorly executed suicide mission with little chance of success.

This begs the question -- who did it and why -- especially given the hypersensitivity to security in the wake of the 9/11 anniversary. In the immediate aftermath of this attack, no organization has claimed responsibility. We can only speculate (alas I have no covert sources in Damascus) but here is some back of the envelope thoughts --

• The Assad regime itself. This is not beyond the realm of the possible. In Iraq, while some of the suicide bombers are true believers -- who are rushed into action in the event that they develop second thoughts -- others are forcibly coerced (with hands taped to the steering wheel as the tell-tale sign). Furthermore, one would suspect that explosives would be a highly controlled item in Syria -- who would have access? Given the bungled nature of this operation (and the likely loss of any surviving participants) this was probably meant as a signal that the Assad regime is displeased with the American role in recent events (e.g., the military pull out of Lebanon, the support for Israel in the month-long battle with Syria's terrorist partner, the Hizbollah, and for the subsequent deployment of European forces along the Syrian-Lebanese border). The military deployment, if forcefully executed, could hamper Hizbollah activity in the region, which would diminish Syria's influence. If so, this action has a whiff of desperation about it.

• Terrorists. The Syrian-run news agency has already declared that the attack was perpetrated by "...a terrorist Takfiri [sectarian Islamic jihadist] group of four gunmen..." If we take Damascus at their word, this does not bode well for Assad. For starters, it doesn't make the regime look good when they cannot control either guns or explosives; authoritarians are disposed to having a monopoly on force. The Takfiri have ties to al-Qaeda and it's possible that they are now focusing their efforts at secularist leaders in the Middle East. (Today's case being a two-fer -- hitting the Great Satan and ensuring a loss of face for the Damascus regime.) If so, you have the strange situation of a terrorist-sponsoring state being attacked by a competing terrorist organization. You'll need a scorecard to keep up. I doubt that Hizbollah would be involved -- why sacrifice the personnel and equipment?

• Rogue Elements within the Regime. The Assad regime is venal and corrupt -- and palace coup plotters may be setting the conditions. Unlike his father, Hafez, who was an Air Force pilot, Bashar, is an ophthalmologist by training, and the military may be chafing under his leadership. Given recent events, as described above, it's possible that the generals are frustrated by recent events and they may want to put in one of their own. I don't know if Bashar, in the past six years, has been able to install military leaders who are loyal to him or not. Loyalty or not, the military has been taking it on the chin of late. (Not that Hafez was any better a military leaders (e.g. Yom Kippur War) but he was certainly more ruthless.) Furthermore, they would have the werewithal to support this terrorist attack. This is my likely scenario.

In the big scheme of things, today's event is of minor significance. However, it may be a sign of things to come.

Update: A different point of view (i.e., the regime was behind it) can be found here.

Clake's Plan

How's this for a dumb idea:

"I think if we had taken that opportunity to wipe out the camps, and every time they rebuilt them to wipe them out again, we could have so thrown al Qaeda off that perhaps they wouldn't have been able to get up," Clarke said. "And we could have done that anytime over the course of several years."

The Clarke being quoted is Richard Clarke, the former National-Security Council paper pusher who chaired something called the Counter-Terrorism Security Group from 1992-2003. After 9/11, he covered his backside with a book entitled Against All Enemies which was notable for its criticism of the Bush Administration's eight months rather than the Clinton Administration's eight years of "fighting" terrorism.

Clarke, who for most of his career was a civil servant, is out of government now and is, among other things, an advisor to ABC News. (There's something crafty about being paid to spin what happened on your watch.)

Clarke's quote at the top of the post, came in response to a question posed by Brian Ross of ABC News during a special airing of Nightline last night -- an airing that occurred shortly after the end of the first part of The Path to 9/11.

In the movie (for those who were more interested in the Manning Bowl) -- the CIA had an opportunity, in conjunction with Afghan allies, pre-9/11 (in fact before the attack on the embassies in Africa and the USS Cole) to kill or capture Osama bin-Laden. However, Samuel Berger, the President's National Security Advisor, George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, and Richard Clarke all rejected the plan. (Tenet, for most of his career prior to joining the CIA, was a Senate staffer. Berger was a lawyer in private practice during the Reagan-Bush administrations.)

According to Clarke's most recent testimony:

"Bin laden had two tanks. He had machine gun nests. All of these people that CIA had hired would have been gunned down, and so higher levels in the CIA said that plan won't work, and I agreed with them, it wouldn't have worked..."

Two whole tanks, huh? Machine gun nests too?

Of course, Bin Laden had protection, but these Afghan allies were the same group who pushed the Red Army out of Afghanistan years earlier. The two tanks were probably immobile and would have little or no impact on a commando-type raid. As for the machine gun nests -- they could have been eliminated with a well-placed mortar (or other indirect fire) round. But then again, these decision makers didn't have any military experience in their backgrounds.

More than likely, these folks were simply risk-adverse and didn’t want failure to be seen as failing. (See Carter with “Desert One” and Kennedy with “Bay of Pigs”.)

Clarke, however, mentioned that -- "After the embassy bombings, we developed a very elaborate plan to go after bin laden and the al Qaeda network..." So what was the elaborate plan? It seems to be the repeated attack of the training camps.

If being a nuisance was the plan -- then Clarke has indeed succeeded.

Sarkozy or Sardozy?

How many New York Daily News staff writers do not know the name of the French Interior Minister? By my count two. The correct spelling can be found here. Then again, you don't read the NYDN for its foreign coverage.

DNC's Security Plan

If one would take the time to peruse the DNC's website -- you could arguably claim that their chief virtue is that President George W. Bush is not a member. If you read one DNC press release criticizing the President, well, you have pretty much read them all. However, if you're a political party, you should stand for something as opposed to being reflexively against something.

So it was interesting to note that Democratic Senate luminaries (minus Joe Biden -- see below) at a press briefing yesterday (were we saw it -- at of all places -- Fox News) present their plan for national security. Alas, it's pretty thin gruel. To wit:

• Incorporates the 9/11 Commission's recommendations to strengthen security, which have not been enacted. I'm not sure as to the specifics of the plan but perhaps we should focus our efforts on getting the Department for Homeland Security straight before we delve into other recommendations.
• Calls for phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq by year's end. One need not be Clausewitz to understand that this is a bad idea (despite the euphamistic use of "phased redeployment" rather than "withdrawal.") The effect of such a plan would provide the insurgents to sit and wait until US forces have left. The Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are making headway -- perhaps slower than what is liked -- but to put an artificial deadline as to when they are to be a stand-alone force -- is simply irresponsible.
• Would set up a commission to investigate waste and fraud in U.S. contracts in Iraq. No argument as to the merit of having a commission. But why limit it to just US contracts in Iraq -- why not have all governmental spending investigating come under a micro-scope? That would free additional millions for the war effort! Really, the only purposes of a commission would be to slow the process of providing aid to Iraq to re-develop its infrastructure and its military forces.
• Calls for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign. That's not a serious proposal but a play to win the hearts and minds of the left-wing.

Senator Joe Biden, testing the political waters for a presidential campaign run in 2008 -- has proposed his plan for enhanced security. His recommendations include --

• Working to prevent potential threats to the country's security rather than relying on a strategy of "military pre-emption." For instance, the effort to buy off the regime in Pyongyang in 1994 was thought to be a success. However, all it did was to embolden them to nullify the treaty and continue their development of nuclear weaponry. The agreement -- an effort in prevention -- simply delayed the day of reckoning. One does not prevent threats, one eliminates threats.
• Building effective alliances with like-minded countries and with international organizations to pool resources, information, ideas and power. I'm not sure what this means -- the US is a member of the UN, NATO, and a host of other organizations with their own bureaucracies to support. Why add another organization to the mix?
• Developing "institutions of democracy" - political parties as well as an independent media and judicial system - in the Middle East and beyond. Joe, have you ever heard of the National Endowment for Democracy? It's been around for two decades -- do we need to reinvent the wheel?
• Implementing the unheeded 9/11 Commission recommendations. To Senator Biden, this means adding 1,000 more FBI agents and 50,000 more police officers. More is probably better than less, but unless their is a task and purpose for these positions, more would not necessarily better. It briefs well but that's all.

Feeling safer?

Appeased?

Today, (Sep 7) Carl Hulse, of The New York Times, gets it wrong.

In an otherwise forgettable article about a failed Democratic Party initiative to hold a (non-binding) vote on the Defense Secretary, the reporter incorrectly records a comment about Secretary Rumsfeld's recent speech to the American Legion in Salt Lake City. In an effort to justify the procedure, Senator Charles Schumer of New York claimed that the speech was a "a low point." The journalist then noted by way of explanation that Secretary Rumsfeld, in that speech "...compared critics of Bush terror policies to those who appeased Hitler before World War II."

Not quite.

Here is what Secretary Rumsfeld actually said:
"With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?"

Not exactly the same as calling one's opponents appeasers. Further, it demonstrates that Senator Schumer didn't read the speech either as he called it "...a lot of name calling..."

Here is where it gets disappointing -- why didn't any editors of The Times note the error? Groupthink, anyone?

Mike Lupica -- Unhinged

Mike Lupica writes about sports. In the grand scheme of things, it's an unimportant, although lucrative, endeavor. Today, he gets a bit overwhelmed when he tackles the law and politics. It's not pretty. He suggests that the federal investigation into a leak of grand jury testimony is a reflection of how the President is running the country.

The column discusses the fate of two reporters, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, who wrote a book chronicling the alleged use of steroids in baseball. In addition to informing the masses, they intended to make money from this endeavor. Part of their reporting was based on information leaked from a grand jury -- stuff that's supposes to be, well, secret.

Today, Mr. Lupica notes:
"No, it is just Bush's America, where the people in charge think that if they tell a lie often enough it eventually becomes the truth. And in Bush's America, there is no longer any balancing test of any kind, no determination that if some information is leaked, even out of a grand jury, it might be more valuable than punishing the person who leaked it. It is a disgrace."

Mr. Lupica's rant is not encumbered by facts.

According to the presiding judge in the case, here is the rationale compelling their testimony:
"The court finds itself bound by the law to subordinate [the reporters'] interests to the interests of the grand jury'' in discovering the source of the leaks. The grand jury is inquiring into matters that involve a legitimate need of law enforcement.

Regardless of who is running the country, there is no "balancing test" when it comes to enforcing the law. Messrs Fainaru-Wada and Williams, knew or should have known, that they would profit by inducing others to break the law. Further, they were depriving the subjects of the grand jury Constitutionally-mandated protections of due process. (Regardless of what one thinks of Barry Bonds and his alleged use of steroids -- he is still deserving of his rights.)

In fairness to Mr. Lupica, he's reflexively circling the wagons -- writers of all ilk think that providing confidentiality is a trump card.

What's particularly loathsome about Mr. Lupica's column is the cheap shots aimed at the President to wit:
1. Better at being at war with the press than the insurgents in Iraq. I don't recall seeing Mr. Lupica during my year in Baghdad and who is firing the 155mm howitzers at the newspapers?
2. Half-truths got us into the war with Iraq. OK, who said that Iraq didn't have WMD? Last time I counted 700 chemical weapons have been discovered in Iraq since 2003.
3. The same Republican yahoos ... (let)the feds trample California's shield law for reporters. It's a federal case -- we're not talking locker room gossip.
4. The remark that if you tell a lie long enough people will believe it. What lie, if any, are we talking about -- help a reader out.

Mr. Lupica -- leave the law and politics to those who know what they're talking about. Stick to sports -- you won't look as foolish.

Plame Out

The New York Times on page A12 of the (August 30 edition) reported that a lawyer, somehow involved in the CIA leak case, admitted that Richard L. Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State was the source of the leak. (Other news sources reported the same several days earlier based upon a book that disclosed this fact. However, it’s never official, until The Times weighs in.)

It was widely assumed that the White House (take your pick as to who in particular) was responsible for identifying Valerie Wilson (nee Plame) as a covert employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. That fact, classified under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act, was revealed to the columnist, Robert Novak, which made its way into one of his columns. As one can understand, once your cover has been “blown” – your utility is somewhat limited. (Ms. Plame, however, was never in any mortal danger.)

The White House was suspected because it was assumed that the Bush Administration was punishing Mrs. Wilson’s husband – Joseph Wilson – for an op-ed that he authored in the New York Times. The op-ed countered an argument made by President Bush that Iraq (under the Saddam Hussein) regime was attempting to acquire materiel for the development of a nuclear device from an African country. It was later revealed that Ms. Plame had a role in the selection of her husband. (As to the utility or lack thereof of Ambassador Wilson’s trip see here.)

As per law, the leak had to be investigated. (Robert Novak – who made Ms. Plame’s secret employment a matter of international knowledge – has been treated with kid gloves. Which begs the question – why?)

Patrick J. Fitzgerald was appointed as a special prosecutor to the case. Oddly, it was known by investigators that Mr. Armitage was the leaker before they began. Nonetheless, time was spent, money was wasted, cable news was consumed and the Administration was stymied all due to this investigation. In the end, Vice President Richard Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby was indicted on a procedural technicality. (As a result, the Mr. Libby resigned, depriving the Vice President of the counsel of a trusted aide.) Rumors were rife that President Bush’s political advisor, Karl Rove, would also be indicted. Much to the dismay of the President’s critics, this shoe never dropped.

Mr. Armitage was one of the protagonists in James Mann’s Rise of the Vulcans, a portrait of the key players in the Bush foreign policy team. To me, he never seemed a proper fit with the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice. Armitage, was part of the group because he was a cohort of Colin Powell – who really never fitted in with the Administration’s mindset. (General Powell, although well-qualified for the post, was primarily selected for his star-power and certainly he was more well-known that Vice President Gore’s likely choice, Strobe Talbott.) Armitage, was more of the dutiful foot-soldier than a grand strategist.

So what now?

For Mr. Armitage, it’s time to come clean with a big-time mea culpa. He’s pretty much a spent force for any future government position (who trusts a blabbermouth?) whether it’s run by a Democrat or Republican. Further, it’s one thing to be gossip; it’s another not to be man enough to admit your fault publickly. He’d be better off going on the Sunday morning shows (especially during the Labor Day weekend) and ‘fess up. Otherwise, he’ll be haunted by his incident until he’s buried.

For Mr. Fitzgerald, it’s time to pack up the tent and head back to Illinois. Unless he draws his jurors from the Democratic National Committee, he’s going to have a hard time convincing 12 people that Mr. Libby was guilty of anything. (After all, wasn’t this a leak investigation?)

For Mr. Lewis, it’s time to play offense. Request depositions from everyone on the 7th Floor at State who worked with Mr. Armitage – share the discomfort. Further, have your legal team hit the cable TV news programs often to discuss how the case lacks merit. There’s no law that says your attorneys cannot try the case in public. Lastly, you may want to set your legal cross-hairs on Mr. Armitage – there has to be a price to be paid for being a cowardly gossip.

For Mr. and Mrs. Wilson – I hope you enjoyed your fifteen minutes. You certainly overstayed your invitation.

Ernesto's Visit

Want to know what's the worse part of a hurricane? It's all the reporters out in the midst of the storm -- telling us it's raining and it's windy. Can't wait.