Congress Archives

Secrets and the Single Rogue

November 29, 2006 02:01 PM

There was no way Alcee Hastings would be permitted to chair the intelligence committee. Nevertheless, I always found him to be a superb gentleman - a tad grandiose - despite his unsavory past. If some have the impression that Hastings is a cynical and pernicious personality, it is a mistaken impression.

The Hastings affair calls up a larger issue, which is that Congress is entitled to whichever Members and staff it wishes to have on the intel committee. Because of the separation of powers principle, Congress - not the FBI - does the vetting. And as the Hastings matter demonstrates, this is not a fail-safe process. Although Hastings would surely be denied clearance to review intelligence in the executive branch, his election to Congress suffices to qualify him in the legislature. Even if he were not seated on intel, Hastings - as well as any other Member of the House or Senate* - is entitled to receive classified briefings and to review material that is withheld from the public. Now, having known Hastings, I have no doubt he can be trusted, in spite of his history. But that conclusion is separate and apart from the question of whether he - or perhaps others in Congress - should be permitted access to this information. To choose an extreme example, let's imagine that former KKK wizard and implacable Jew-hater David Duke is somehow elected to Congress (he didn't miss the governor's mansion by much). Is that really enough to justify his access to the nation's secrets? Maybe. But one can also see how this arrangement might conceivably place the country's security in the hands of a deluded voting majority in one Congressional district.

*Some Members in the House, including Dennis Kucinich, Jim McDermott and Pete Stark have refused over the years to sign the official secrecy pledge, and are thus excluded from reviewing classified material or receiving classified briefings.

Link · American Politics | Congress | War on Terror

Congress Archives

My two cents

October 3, 2006 06:37 AM

Let me say a word or two about Mark Foley, since I knew him well - professionally, never socially - for most of the 10 years I spent covering Congress in Washington.

Our association began in the mid-to-late '90s, when I was writing articles for the Hollywood Reporter and Foley was elected to chair the House entertainment caucus. The caucus is mainly a policy group - some would say a mutual suck-up society - that serves as the main point of contact between Congress and Hollywood. (Like the constituents they represent, lawmakers are basically star-struck in the presence of celebrities. With all the competing issues, you wouldn't believe the attention a John Travolta could bring to German government policy on Scientology, which it treats as a scam.) Foley relished the job. It seemed like each day would bring a new press release or phone call from his office, announcing some new initiative or event. Piracy was probably the main issue at the time. It might still be. I recall at one point spending the better part of a day with Foley as he shepherded various entertainers from meeting to meeting in the Capitol. If for no other reason, I am grateful to him for my introduction to EmmyLou Harris.

As many, including Andrew Sullivan, have already remarked, it was an open secret in Washington that Foley was "gay." He never hit on me, though. Perhaps I was too old. (Andrew, for one, seems confused over whether Foley was gay - a tragic victim of "the closet" who was forced to extremes by his secret - or a "sexually predatory creep," which is today's depiction on his blog.) I also never got the impression that Foley was making a great effort to hide his "secret." The last time I saw him, a couple of years ago, he was driving an ostentatious, light-blue BMW convertible, top down - not the kind of car you drive when you're trying to keep your head down and stay out of trouble. And there was a young man in the passenger seat. Presumably an aide. But I recall one of my colleagues remarking at the time that the young fellow was probably Foley's most recent quarry.

In any case, his secret - at least the one people believed he was hiding - was hardly a secret at all. For one thing, it was widely known on Capitol Hill that Foley was "outed" by a small newspaper in his district before the 2004 elections. I recall that at Roll Call, where I worked at the time, we struggled over the question of whether and how this matter should be reported. If he was "outed," it would presumably be a factor in his bid for re-election. But did a piece in a free paper with a small circulation qualify as an "outing"? And even so, weren't we really looking at a personal matter that ought to be no one's business? There were external efforts to force the issue into print. At one point, I recall one of our reporters receiving a press release from the "Gay Democrats of Broward County," a putative political organization, announcing its "endorsement" of Foley for re-election. Efforts to locate the Gay Democrats of Broward County came up empty, of course.

Foley was deeply, obsessively involved in child endangerment issues. I doubt that anyone who encountered him on Capitol Hill in the last four years came away without some kind of update on the progress of this or that initiative. There's a sickening foreboding about those encounters now. But at the time none of this struck me as odd, even after taking into account his supposed homosexuality. For one thing, I've known a lot of gay people, and they're fiercely insistent about the distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia. For all I knew, Foley's legislative crusade was part of an effort to underscore that distinction - as if to say, to all those who "knew" his secret, that he was gay, not a child molester. But he was also from Florida, where the battle against child abuse really took shape due to the activism of John Walsh, father of Adam, the namesake of the legislation that recently cleared Congress. Covering Congress, you often find that lawmakers are obsessive about two or three things that really ping the radar back home. Take a look at farm-state lawmakers and ethanol, for instance. Because of the Walsh saga, I assumed that child endangerment was just one of these things - basic constituent service. And, of course, I remembered the intensity with which he worked as chairman of the entertainment caucus. He was an intense guy - always friendly, but intense.

It is inconceivable that Speaker Hastert was unaware of the rumors that Foley was "gay." It wouldn't have made a difference: There was no ostracism or banishment of Jim Kolbe, from Arizona, when he came out years ago. But the business about the pages - I, for one, never heard anything about that. And I don't know what Hastert might have "known," or felt that he knew. Hastert might have thought Foley's associations with pages - including the emails and messages he saw - were of a piece with Foley's more general weirdness. He should clearly have ordered the contacts to cease. But, one can also imagine the Speaker telling himself: Foley is the obsessive sponsor of legislation to protect kids. What are the chances he was abusing those he was working to help? A House Speaker isn't a psychiatrist.

I hope Foley never took advantage of an opportunity to abuse minors, though I suspect that is a vain hope. Experience tells us that people with deep-set perversions are nothing if not resourceful. It is likely that he has destroyed some lives. Foley undoubtedly went on a number of Congressional delegations (CODELS) abroad, and probably to some places where American money can buy just about anything. It's not only the Justice Department that has some investigating to do.

Link · American Politics | Congress | Journalism

Congress Archives

The Devil's Workshop

September 5, 2006 03:28 PM

The Washington Examiner:

WASHINGTON - Something almost without precedent in America will happen Thursday. That’s the day when McCain-Feingold — aka the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 — will officially silence broadcast advertising that contains criticism of members of Congress seeking re-election in November. Before 2006, American election campaigns traditionally began in earnest after Labor Day. Unless McCain-Feingold is repealed, Labor Day will henceforth mark the point in the campaign when congressional incumbents can sit back and cruise, free of those pesky negative TV and radio spots. It is the most effective incumbent protection act possible, short of abolishing the elections themselves.

I have nothing useful to add to this, nor to Glenn's succinct, though appropriate response. This law is a disgrace. Shame on them.

Link · American Politics | Congress

Congress Archives

Conyers: Paradise Postponed

May 18, 2006 07:50 AM

Being in the House minority has been good for John Conyers. Bewildered but powerless, he is free to howl impotently into the cosmic void about all and sundry Bush administration malfeasances, without any danger of being taken seriously. It's been a good bargain for Democrats, too. Conyers provides them with valuable outreach to the nuttier segments of the party base, while colleagues are never forced to acknowledge that he's a nitwit.

Trouble is, Conyers and the Democrats may not remain in the minority much longer, if the polls are to be believed. And while the specter of Conyers as Judiciary chairman may not be enough to rouse the GOP's disenchanted base, the specter of Conyers beginning impeachment proceedings following a Democratic takeover probably would. Although I personally would get a real kick out of these Conyers-chaired hearings, the Democratic leadership in the House is probably wise to suspect that the Republican base would feel otherwise. So, undoubtedly with some prodding from the higher-ups, Conyers today placed an op-ed in the Post disavowing any plan to "immediately" start the impeachment process. Where would anyone have gotten the idea that he might? Perhaps from the mock impeachment proceedings that Conyers has hosted in the Capitol basement, featuring the usual assortment of muttering cultists and conspirators.

Now, though, Conyers says he can't start "immediately," because lawmakers won't know enough about the seriousness of their own charges until the Bush administration starts answering questions.

Fair enough -- Congressional Republicans have been shamefully indulgent on matters of oversight. Bringing a few checks and balances back to Capitol Hill is not a bad reason to back the Democrats this November. (Though if Nancy Pelosi continues to mistake the Supreme Court for God, one imagines oversight in the House may continue to lag.) So fine, then. What does Conyers have in mind?

For example, to know whether intelligence was mistaken or manipulated in the run-up to the Iraq war, we need to know what information was made available to -- and actually read by -- decision makers and how views contradicting the case for war were treated.

We need to know the extent to which high-ranking officials approved of the use of torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment inflicted upon detainees. We need to know whether the leaking of the name of a covert CIA operative was deliberate or accidental, as well as the identity of those responsible.

Now, I know what you're thinking: Isn't most of this stuff dealt with in the reports from the Robb-Silberman commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into pre-war intelligence on Saddam's WMD programs? Yes. But who really takes that kind of stuff seriously? Or has the time to read it? Or -- you know -- whatever.

It was House Republicans who took power in 1995 with immediate plans to undermine President Bill Clinton by any means necessary, and they did so in the most autocratic, partisan and destructive ways imaginable. If there is any lesson from those "revolutionaries," it is that partisan vendettas ultimately provoke a public backlash and are never viewed as legitimate.

So, rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses. The oversight I have suggested would be performed by a select committee made up equally of Democrats and Republicans and chosen by the House speaker and the minority leader.

Wait -- did he say comprehensive oversight? My God, this man is drunk with power and malice!

The committee's job would be to obtain answers -- finally. At the end of the process, if -- and only if -- the select committee, acting on a bipartisan basis, finds evidence of potentially impeachable offenses, it would forward that information to the Judiciary Committee. This threshold of bipartisanship is appropriate, I believe, when dealing with an issue of this magnitude.

Yeah, I see his point. Why have independent commissions deal with this kind of stuff when you could have the full complement of preening lawmakers exchanging inanities and making Congress look ridiculous?

One-party rule has dug our nation into a deep hole over the past six years. The Judiciary Committee needs to fully implement the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, strengthen laws against wartime fraud, ban trade with state sponsors of terrorism, increase funding for community policing and protect government whistle-blowers. Most important, before we have another presidential election, I believe we need to pass laws protecting the integrity of our electoral system -- the very foundation of our democracy.

Oh well, I guess we won't get to read the rest of the op-ed, as Conyers seems to have trailed off into some other business about community policing and the Electoral System (peace be upon it).

But, based on what I read, I think he's probably allayed some of his leadership's concerns. Now if only they can fit "Vote Democrat for a full, bipartisan inquiry and potential impeachment referral over the Iraq War and Valerie Plame who was a covert CIA operative you better believe it" on a bumper sticker....

Link · American Politics | Congress | Iraq · TrackBack (15)

Congress Archives

Covert Auction

May 14, 2006 08:56 AM

Better question: Did she ever shut up? From the Sunday Washington Post story on former CIA official Mary McCarthy:

McCarthy became convinced that "CIA people had lied" in that briefing, as one of her friends said later....

McCarthy became disenchanted, three of her friends say....

In addition to CIA misrepresentations at the session last summer, McCarthy told the friends....

McCarthy also told others she was offended that the CIA's general counsel....

She dissented from Bush administration policy, and she let others know....

McCarthy, in e-mails to friends, has denied leaking anything classified....

She has not denied [in e-mails to friends] speaking to Priest but....

It left her frustrated, and in articles published [by McCarthy] in a small-circulation intelligence journal....

The exchanges...helped harden McCarthy's view that "the CIA is just very insular," a former colleague said....

McCarthy...felt "underutilized," according to one friend....

McCarthy "was seeing things in some of the investigations that troubled her," said one of her friends....

"She had the impression that this stuff has been pretty well buried," another friend said....

In McCarthy's view and that of many colleagues, two friends say, torture was not only wrong....

Link · American Politics | Congress | War on Terror · TrackBack (6)

Congress Archives

The Apple Falls on the Tree

May 5, 2006 06:21 AM

It's May. The flowers are blooming, the birds are singing, and a Kennedy is capturing the attention of law enforcement.

Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy crashed his car into a security barrier near the Capitol early yesterday, and officers at the scene suspected that he might have been intoxicated, a police union official said.

Kennedy (D-R.I.) issued a statement late last night -- his second in several hours -- saying he had been disoriented after taking prescription drugs: Phenergan for gastroenteritis, an inflammation of the stomach and intestines, and Ambien, a sleeping medication....

"The timeliness of the statement says everything," [a police union official] said. "It took up to 10 o clock," or 19 hours after the 2:50 a.m. incident, to offer the expanded explanation.

I sure could have used that kind of time in high school.

Note to Patrick: The story is headlined, "Rep. Kennedy's Car Crashes Near Capitol." There's an alibi in there if you've got the nerve to seize it....

Link · American Politics | Congress · TrackBack (5)

Congress Archives

could these events be unrelated?

April 4, 2006 07:21 AM

On March 29, a vast segment of humanity, from Brazil to Mongolia, witnessed a rare total eclipse of the sun.

Meanwhile in Washington, just three days later, a similar orbital alignment took shape. (My emphases to follow.)

[Rep. Cynthia] McKinney, speaking at a news conference where she was joined by singer Harry Belafonte and actor Danny Glover, said she understands that a case against her may be referred for prosecution, but declared she will be exonerated.

Let's see: Total eclipse occurs, then Belafonte, Glover and McKinney appear at the same podium all at once.... We've been shown two of the Seven Seals! We're doomed!

But hey, at least McKinney hasn't signed the Congressional oath for access to classified information, which would enable her to view highly sensitive national security intelligence and thus hasten the apocalypse.... Update: Noooooooo!

I leave at nightfall for my small, fortified cabin in the mountains, where I will await the Resurrection of Tupac....

Link · American Politics | Congress · TrackBack (29)

Congress Archives

Your tax dollars at play

February 16, 2006 11:31 PM

Sure, the EastCoast/WestCoast rivalry in hip-hop may help explain the murders of prominent rappers such as Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls. But what explains the EastCoast/WestCoast rivalry? The voters of Georgia's 4th Congressional District sent Cynthia McKinney (D-EastCoast) to Congress to find out.

(Note: The following exchange is excerpted from a real interview. Seriously. No, I'm not kidding.)

ThugLifeArmy.com - After the records are released then what would be the next course of action by you and others?

Rep. Cynthia McKinney - Some records are already released that throw doubt on the officially unsolved murder of Tupac and the police version of the death. It seems clear that Tupac, who came from a family of very militant Black Panther activists, would himself have been followed and surveilled if not attacked by the FBI and their counter-gang programs. In the past this sort of surveillance was called COINTELPRO or Counter-Intelligence Program and aimed at peace, civil rights and militant activists who were working for social change. It not only surveilled people but it infiltrated groups with informants and provocateurs, created fights within groups, spread rumors about leaders, and created the conditions that led to political assassination, framing and imprisonment or destruction of progressive organizations. Senator Frank Church and others held hearings in the 1970s that exposed and made illegal some of the excesses of the FBI, CIA and military intelligence agencies. Soon Church and others on his committee were voted out of office with the help of intelligence agency support for other candidates. Even before 9/11 ongoing programs against Central America activists and youth culture musicians and leaders that looked exactly like COINTELPRO were exposed. After 9/11 Atty General Ashcroft and others called to renew the powers of COINTELPRO and even tried to pretend 9/11 happened because the CIA. FBI and DIA had their hands tied behind their backs the the Church committee rules. If the released records reveal that federal, state and local government agencies and police were violating Tupac's rights or setting the stage for his murder, there should be an outcry for a full investigation, criminal charges, demotions or firings of intelligence agents involved, and a change in the power of intelligence agencies to continue these practices. [Emphases mine]

Yes, indeed. How many more rappers must die before we clean up our intelligence services?

Of course, when "setting the stage" for a political assassination, it helps to have for a target a loud-mouthed, pistol waving jackass with the words THUG LIFE tattooed across his belly. Hell, I'd whack him, and without any prodding from the government.

Side note: Can you imagine being demoted for your role in the Tupac Shakur murder? Can you imagine joining the intelligence services only to find that you've been assigned to the Gangsta Rappers desk? Can you imagine that Tupac Shakur must be killed, but Chuck D still walks the streets? Has Chuck D complained?

You might ponder these questions as you fill out your application for the Citizens Advisory Committee -- but only if you're black! The rest of you just wouldn't understand....

Link · American Politics | Congress | History | News Media · Comments (0) · TrackBack (87)