Archive for September, 2006

Does Webb Have a Race Problem?

Posted: September 28, 2006 in 2006 Elections

From today’s Washington Post:

Webb described taking drives through the black neighborhood of Watts, where he and members of his ROTC unit used racial epithets and pointed fake guns at blacks to scare them.

“They would hop into their cars, and would go down to Watts with these buddies of his,” Cragg said Webb told him. “They would take the rifles down there. They would call then [epithets], point the rifles at them, pull the triggers and then drive off laughing. One night, some guys caught them and beat . . . them. And that was the end of that.”

Cragg said Webb told him the Watts story during a 1983 interview for a Vietnam veterans magazine. Cragg, who described himself as a Republican who would vote for Allen, did not include the story in his article. He provided a transcript of the interview, but the transcript does not contain the ROTC story. He said he still remembers the exchange vividly more than 20 years later.

As a journalist I would be derelict if I did not write down detailed notes or a complete transcript of any interview, particularly if it were an explosive allegation such as the one Cragg is now saying Webb told him but he didn’t include in his story.

Unless more people come forward and corroborate Cragg’s claims (note the use of the word they when Cragg tells the story, implying that several people were involved in this) this will not be a big issue for Jim Webb as it is with George Allen. I should also note that a big part of Allen’s problems were caused because his reactions or remarks were caught on tape. However, until Webb issues a more forceful denial about this (read the rest of the Post story), he will appear to be ducking the issue.

Uh Oh…

Posted: September 27, 2006 in 2006 Elections, October Surprise

A couple of days ago, I mentioned the explosive allegation first reported by Salon.com that Senator George Allen (R-Virginia) stuffed a severed deer’s head in the mailbox of a house in an African American neighborhood. Again, I will note in fairness to Allen that he denied the allegations during an interview he gave to the Associated Press.

Looks like the alleged Godfather stunt is now being checked in the historical archives:

I spoke to a deputy in the Louisa County Sheriff’s Office late yesterday afternoon. They are looking though old records for any report of a deer’s head stuffed into a black family’s mailbox. This is an active investigation again- I have the cell phone number of deputy working on the case.

More bad news for Senator Allen on the same allegation – the New Republic’s Ryan Lizza has found a second, on the record source who heard about the incident from one of the men who was there when it happened.

A former college classmate of George Allen and Ken Shelton, the North Carolina radiologist who says Allen regularly used the N-word in the 1970s and once stuck the head of a deer in the mailbox of a black family, has come forward to corroborate one of Shelton’s accusations.

“I’m not out to get George Allen,” says George Beam, a 53 year-old technical manager in the nuclear industry, who lives in Forest, Virginia and who spoke to The New Republic this morning. “I just think Kenny Shelton is a fine, upstanding person, and I know he is telling the truth.”

Beam was roommates with Billy Lanahan, now deceased, who along with Allen and Shelton, was the third member of the now infamous hunting party. According to Beam, Lanahan later told him the bizarre story of the three men stuffing the deer head into a mailbox. He says Lanahan did not tell him that the prank had any racial overtones.

“Some time drinking a beer at U Heights,” Beam says, referring to the campus housing complex where Beam, Lanahan, and Allen all lived, “Lanahan told me they went hunting and killed a deer. All I know is they cut off a deer head and stuck it in someone’s mailbox. … He didn’t say it was racial — just said they stuck it in a mailbox as a prank.”

For Allen’s sake, I hope this winds up being a wild goose chase, because if it is confirmed that this incident did happen, 1) his credibility will be shot, and 2) his political career will be over.

Drip, drip, drip…

The New York Times has another person on the record who remembers Senator George Allen (R-Virginia) making racist comments, this time in the early 1980’s. This person is independent of the three former football teammates who spoke with Salon.com.

Separately, Professor Larry Sabato of UVA, who was a classmate of Allen’s at UVA in the 70’s and is considered one of the most renown political scientists and observers in the country, told Chris Matthews that he didn’t believe Allen’s denials.

The key part of the interview:

MATTHEWS: What about the charges that he actually used bad language that some of us are familiar with in this country, in fact most Americans are, the bad language about people from another background?
SABATO: Well, I can’t say how frequently he did it, but I don’t believe him when he denies ever having done it. [Matthews begins talking over him] That is just not true.
MATTHEWS: That in this country, for that generation, is a very hard test. The accusation here I believe is that he was distinctive in what is being called racial hatred, that he regularly used an awful word, the N-word, with some sort of attitude. Is that true?
SABATO: Well, I’m simply going to say that I’m going to stay with I know is the case, and the fact is that he did use the N-word, whether he’s denying it now or not. He did use it. It was the 70’s, you’re right, it was a harsh term. It was an obscenity as far as I’m concerned.

MATTHEWS: But you say he used the N-word?
SABATO: That is correct.

Whether this is based on direct first-hand insight or rumors and hearsay from the time, Sabato’s words probably carry more weight on this race and Senator Allen than most people because of his longstanding ties to the state and his understanding of Virginia and national politics.

Now, in fairness to Allen, only three of his former teammates have said he used racist language, and the graduate student who talked to the New York Times. He also denied the allegations in the Salon.com article in an interview with the Associated Press:

“The story and his comments and assertions in there are completely false,” Allen said during an interview with AP reporters and editors. “I don’t remember ever using that word and it is absolutely false that that was ever part of my vocabulary.”

The bottom line: it is now a media open season on George Allen’s past comments or views on race. If there is any truth to this or any more people who come forward to the news media on the record, Allen will be in very serious trouble with about 5 weeks to go before Election Day.

Drip, drip, drip…

The New York Times has another person on the record who remembers Senator George Allen (R-Virginia) making racist comments, this time in the early 1980’s. This person is independent of the three former football teammates who spoke with Salon.com.

Separately, Professor Larry Sabato of UVA, who was a classmate of Allen’s at UVA in the 70’s and is considered one of the most renown political scientists and observers in the country, told Chris Matthews that he didn’t believe Allen’s denials.

The key part of the interview:

MATTHEWS: What about the charges that he actually used bad language that some of us are familiar with in this country, in fact most Americans are, the bad language about people from another background?
SABATO: Well, I can’t say how frequently he did it, but I don’t believe him when he denies ever having done it. [Matthews begins talking over him] That is just not true.
MATTHEWS: That in this country, for that generation, is a very hard test. The accusation here I believe is that he was distinctive in what is being called racial hatred, that he regularly used an awful word, the N-word, with some sort of attitude. Is that true?
SABATO: Well, I’m simply going to say that I’m going to stay with I know is the case, and the fact is that he did use the N-word, whether he’s denying it now or not. He did use it. It was the 70’s, you’re right, it was a harsh term. It was an obscenity as far as I’m concerned.

MATTHEWS: But you say he used the N-word?
SABATO: That is correct.

Whether this is based on direct first-hand insight or rumors and hearsay from the time, Sabato’s words probably carry more weight on this race and Senator Allen than most people because of his longstanding ties to the state and his understanding of Virginia and national politics.

Now, in fairness to Allen, only three of his former teammates have said he used racist language, and the graduate student who talked to the New York Times. He also denied the allegations in the Salon.com article in an interview with the Associated Press:

“The story and his comments and assertions in there are completely false,” Allen said during an interview with AP reporters and editors. “I don’t remember ever using that word and it is absolutely false that that was ever part of my vocabulary.”

The bottom line: it is now a media open season on George Allen’s past comments or views on race. If there is any truth to this or any more people who come forward to the news media on the record, Allen will be in very serious trouble with about 5 weeks to go before Election Day.

Salon.com is reporting that three of Senator George Allen’s (R-Virginia) college football teammates remember him making racist comments. One is quoted on the record, the other two were on background.

The whole piece is well written and well-sourced in terms of Allen’s former teammates, who have positive, negative, or indifferent memories of when they knew him as a football player at UVA. Allen’s senate office and re-election campaign did not return calls for comment.

The most damning and shocking allegation in the piece:

Shelton [Allen’s former teammate who went on the record with his allegations] said he also remembers a disturbing deer hunting trip with Allen on land that was owned by the family of Billy Lanahan, a wide receiver on the team. After they had killed a deer, Shelton said he remembers Allen asking Lanahan where the local black residents lived. Shelton said Allen then drove the three of them to that neighborhood with the severed head of the deer. “He proceeded to take the doe’s head and stuff it into a mailbox,” Shelton said.

If there is any truth to any of these allegations, Allen’s political ambitions for the White House are toast. He may not even survive his re-election bid for the Senate. First there was the controversy over his “macaca” comments to a Webb volunteer, then there was the “controversy” over how he reacted to a reporter’s poorly phrased question about his Jewish heritage, and now this. He probably could have survived any of those individually without serious damage to his political career, but take all three together and I think he may want to update his resume once November comes around.

Off With Their Heads!

Posted: September 23, 2006 in Technology

NY Times: Chairwoman Leaves Hewlett in Spying Furor

PALO ALTO, Calif., Sept. 22 — The furor over Hewlett-Packard’s spying operation claimed its highest-ranking victim on Friday with the immediate resignation of its chairwoman, Patricia C. Dunn.

The move was announced by Mark V. Hurd, the chief executive, who will now succeed her. But even as he offered an account of an investigation gone awry, and offered apologies to those whose privacy was invaded, he made it clear that many questions had yet to be answered.

His voice shaking, Mr. Hurd said a review of the means used to trace leaks from the company’s board had produced “very disturbing” findings. He also conceded that “I could have, and I should have,” read a report prepared for him while the operation was under way.

The investigators’ zeal led them into a shadowy world of surveillance, and in the end the giant computer company was embarrassed by its own use of technology.

Two executives who supervised the effort were also reported to be leaving.

Dunn should have been axed when the story broke a couple of weeks ago. There is no way she could have stayed on at HP in any capacity after this mess. In essence, Dunn has become the biggest pariah in corporate America this side of Ken Lay. She had better get some good lawyers fast because I have a feeling things are going to get a lot worse for her in the days, weeks, and months ahead.

Un-Able Danger

Posted: September 22, 2006 in National Security

NY Times: Claim 9/11 Terrorists Were Identified Is Rejected

Another 9/11 conspiracy theory shot to hell.

On the bright side, at least ABC’s “Path to 9/11” didn’t show or mention the Able Danger Unit along with the other inaccuracies in the series..

Hewlett Packard-Gate

Posted: September 22, 2006 in Technology

This couldn’t have happened to a nicer corporate board.

If I were an HP shareholder, I would demand the resignation of everyone who came up with or helped carry out this scheme. Contrary to popular belief, there IS such a thing as bad press and bad publicity, and once it starts to affect the bottom line, it becomes a shareholder issue.

Quick Update

Posted: September 22, 2006 in Music, Pop Culture

I’ve been swamped with school work for the last week or so, so I haven’t been able to write on this very much. I have a few ideas kicking around and some possible blog entries at different stages of completion.

In the meantime, keep yourself entertained with this stunning live performance by Jeff Buckley.

Facts Are Stupid Things…

Posted: September 16, 2006 in Movies, National Security

I recently wrote this fact check/editorial piece for the Daily Trojan on ABC’s controversial miniseries “The Path to 9/11.” For the sake of brevity, I was unable to dissect each scene and cite sources as in depth as I would have liked. So as a companion to that, I’ve posted my research with source information in this entry.

Unless otherwise mentioned, my main sources of research were:

The 9/11 Commission Report
Steve Coll, “Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001.”
Richard Clarke, “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror.”

Movie: In the most controversial scene of the movie, a CIA operative and Northern Alliance fighters in Afghanistan had Osama bin Laden in their sights, but aborted the mission after a phone call with Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger.
Reality: Both Berger and Clinton/Bush counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke sharply dispute this scene. There is no evidence that the CIA at any point had Osama bin Laden in their sights to call in an air strike.

The original cut of the movie had Berger hanging up the phone before the CIA team decided to abort the mission. This scene was cut before Berger hangs up the phone. However, an anti-Berger/anti-Clinton comment [“Are there any men left in Washington or are they all cowards?”] by Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud was left in the movie.

According to the 9/11 Commission, the decision to abort the operations which were never carried out were ultimately based on the recommendations of CIA Director George Tenet, not Berger. Because this never happened, a scene in the movie a few minutes after the August 1998 bombings on the East Africa embassies where a CIA analyst tearfully barges into a conference room and blasts George Tenet for not ordering the strike on bin Laden shown in the movie is also inaccurate.

The following is a timeline of attempts during the Clinton Administration to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, as documented by the 9/11 Commission:
Fall of 1997: The CIA draws up preliminary plans to capture bin Laden alive.
June 1998: The CIA plans a raid to capture bin Laden for June 23, with intentions of getting him out of Afghanistan within four weeks. Although the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision, this operation was aborted by CIA Director George Tenet at the recommendation of his operations officers.
August 1998: After the East Africa embassy bombings in August, the Clinton Administration retaliates with missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan with the intention of killing bin Laden.
September-October 1998: Afghan assets of the CIA claim they attempted to ambush Bin Laden four times with the intention of capturing him alive, with no success.
December 1998: Senior officials decide against recommending another missile strike against bin Laden after getting a possible lead on his location. Clinton later modifies his previous order, authorizing the Afghan assets to kill bin Laden if capturing him was not possible.
February 1999: Intelligence indicating bin Laden’s presence at a camp in Afghanistan. The proposed missile strike is eventually called off after discussions with Tenet who felt the intelligence was unreliable.
May 1999: Several CIA assets report on bin Laden’s location over a period of five days. Berger believes Tenet made the decision against the strike.
The 9/11 Commission considered this “perhaps the last, and most likely the best” opportunity to target bin Laden with a missile strike before 9/11. No missile strikes against bin Laden were considered again until after 9/11.
[Sources: 9/11 Commission, p. 108-121, 126-143. Coll, p. 371-396, 410-412, 421-28, 445-450. Clarke, p. 148-154, 188-190, 199-204.]

Movie: The CIA spotted Osama bin Laden while testing a prototype for an unmanned aerial vehicle.
Reality: This is true, although the depiction in the movie is highly exaggerated. In the movie, it took place after the USS Cole bombing.
Steve Coll and the 9/11 Commission reported that the CIA began a series of test flights on the Predator in September of 2000 continuing for several months. The CIA spotted a man believed to be bin Laden two or three times while testing unmanned Predator drones equipped with video cameras. Ten of the fifteen test flights were considered successful, according to the 9/11 Commission.

The video footage of bin Laden seen in the film is also grossly exaggerated, showing near perfect and clear color images of him in a training camp. The actual footage, which was leaked to NBC News approximately two years ago, was grainier and shot from a much greater distance than the footage shown in the movie.

The film is inaccurate showing that a Predator was lost during the test run after an encounter with a Taliban jet. A jet was scrambled to intercept the Predator during one test flight but it flew by the Predator without even seeing it. On one occasion, a plane crash landed shortly after takeoff. This resulted in a bureaucratic turf war between the CIA and the Air Force over who was going to get stuck with the repair bill for the $3 million plane.

The film is accurate when it says the planes were not weaponized at the time, so were not used to attempt to kill bin Laden. Since 9/11, Predator drones have been armed with Hellfire missiles and used in at least two operations to assassinate al Qaeda operatives.
[Sources: 9/11 Commission, p. 187-190. Coll, p. 520-531. Clarke, p. 220-222. NBC News, “Osama bin Laden: Missed Opportunities.”]

Movie: Condoleezza Rice reads the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) warning, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
Reality: Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission that the PDB contained “historical information based on old reporting,” “no new threat information,” and that it did not “warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.” Her characterization of the PDB, which was first revealed by the Washington Post and later declassified at the request of the 9/11 Commission, is accurate.

The 9/11 Commission also noted that this was the 36th PDB item that year which was related to bin Laden or al Qaeda, and the first devoted to a possible attack in the United States.

The movie does not depict President Bush receiving this briefing. According to Ron Suskind’s book “The One Percent Doctrine,” after he was given this briefing by a CIA officer while on vacation at his Crawford ranch, President Bush responded, “All right, you’ve covered your ass, now.”
[Sources: 9/11 Commission, p. 260-263. Transcript of Condoleezza Rice’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Suskind, p. 1-2]

Movie: While chairing the Bush Administration’s first principals meeting on terrorism on September 4, 2001, Condoleezza Rice says, “Morning, gentlemen. As a result of the August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing, the president is tired of swatting flies. He believes Al Qaeda is a real threat, and he wants to consider real action. He specifically asked about the armed Predator. Where are we with that?”
Reality: Condoleezza Rice and others recalled the President saying “I’m tired of swatting at flies,” and also reportedly said “I’m tired of playing defense. I want to play offense. I want to take the fight to the terrorists,” in early March of 2001, according to the 9/11 Commission Report.

Regarding the Predator, Richard Clarke and CIA Counterterrorism official Cofer Black were early and vocal proponents of the program, especially a weaponized version of it. There is some dispute whether there was an endorsement of resuming flights during an April 30, 2001 meeting, but Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley ultimately “went along with the CIA and the Pentagon, holding off on reconnaissance flights until the armed Predator was ready,” according to the 9/11 Commission. The Commission also reported that Hadley tried to hurry the development of the armed Predator, directing Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Richard Myers to “deploy Predators capable of being armed no later than September 1.”

The Principals Committee had its first meeting on al Qaeda, chaired by Condoleezza Rice, on September 4, 2001. Clarke sent Rice a memo that day which reads, “are we serious about dealing with the al Qida threat?…Is al Qida a big deal?…Decision makers should imagine themselves on a future day when the CSG has not succeeded in stopping al Qida attacks and hundreds of Americans lay dead in several countries, including the US.”

After being briefed by her staff that the weaponized Predator was not ready for deployment, Rice commented about potential for using it in spring of 2002.
[Sources: 9/11 Commission p. 202, 210-213. Clarke, p. 237-238.]

Movie: Ahmed Shah Massoud warns the CIA that an operation is underway in the United States involving aviation hijackings shortly before he is assassinated.
Reality: There is no evidence that Massoud ever warned the CIA about the 9/11 plot, although in the movie he is shown using alarmist language about the plot, noting that it would happen in the United States and would involve aviation hijackings. However, during a press conference in France on April 5, 2001, he warned “If President Bush doesn’t help us, then these terrorists will damage the United States and Europe very soon – and it will be too late.”
[Source: Coll, p. 555]

Movie: 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta sets off red flags when trying to check in for his American Airlines flight at Logan International Airport in Boston.
Reality: Atta was screened by U.S. Airways employees in Portland, Maine after being selected by a computerized pre-screening system, not American Airways employees in Boston. However, three other members of Atta’s hijacking team were chosen for screening at Logan. All five members of the Atta team cleared the security checkpoint and were able to board their flight. American Airlines has issued a press release calling this scene “inaccurate and irresponsible,” and according to Ad Week, is said to be considering legal action against ABC and pulling all of its advertising from the network.
[Source: 9/11 Commission, p. 1-2]

Movie: Vice President Cheney has a conversation with President Bush the morning of 9/11 where the President gives him the order to shoot down hijacked planes.
Reality: The 9/11 Commission was unable to find any conclusive evidence that this phone call ever took place. From the report:

Among the sources that reflect other important events of that morning, there is no documentary evidence for this call, but the relevant sources are incomplete. Others nearby who were taking notes, such as the Vice President’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, who sat next to him, and Mrs. Cheney, did not note a call between the President and Vice President immediately after the Vice President entered the conference room.

Vanity Fair recently obtained the entire unedited NORAD tapes from 9/11 and did an extensive analysis of the contents. The magazine reported, “President Bush would finally grant commanders the authority to give that order [to shoot down the planes] at 10:18, which—though no one knew it at the time—was 15 minutes after the attack was over.”

Richard Clarke, who was in a different room of the White House than the Vice President and Condoleezza Rice when this happens, remembers getting a message relayed to him by a military aide saying “Tell the Pentagon they have authority from the President to shoot down hostile aircraft, repeat, they have authority to shoot down hostile aircraft.” What is not clear from his narrative is at what time he got this message ordering to shoot down the planes, before or after the 10:18 time reported in Vanity Fair.
[Sources: 9/11 Commission Report, p. 40-42. Vanity Fair “9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes.” September 2006 issue, p. 262-285. Clarke, p. 1-8]