Hillary Clinton's Scooter Libby

I just ran across these two stories (at the WSJ and Huffington Post), thanks to the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) blog (as an aside, in July POMED cited my post on Sen. Biden's partition plan). The focus of both articles, is on the coterie of foreign policy advisers surrounding Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama as they push forward in their bid to gain the Democratic party's nomination. The articles, provide a pretty good synopses of the advisers and their positions both, with regards to foreign policy, and more specifically, their views in the run up to the Iraq war. The reason for this post, however, more than anything is because according to both articles, Sen. Clinton counts Sandy Berger as one of these advisers.

As someone who has time and again railed against the Bush administration for the manner in which it has dealt with people like Scooter Libby, who abused his security clearance for political purposes, I feel it necessary to now do so against Sen. Clinton for doing the same with Sandy Berger. This is a man who pleaded guilty to "a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington." While the lead prosecutor said that Berger only took and destroyed copies of classified material, there has been rampant speculation that he destroyed originals of classified documents concerning "internal assessments of the Clinton administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots". Berger was fined $50,000 and his security clearance was revoked. He also relinquished his license to practice law, as a result of the investigation.

This issue is important. Sen. Clinton was a critic of the administration's handling of the Valerie Plame case, and of Republican support for Scooter Libby. It goes both ways, you can't on the one hand criticize the administration and Republicans for supporting or even commuting Scooter Libby's sentence, while at the same time hiring or relying on another person who abused his security clearance to destroy classified information. It just doesn't work that way. Mr. Berger is Sen. Clinton's Scooter Libby. Will she demonstrate leadership and the type of change we need in Washington, or keep Mr. Berger as an adviser and demonstrate that she is no better than the very administration she has criticized for so long?

Some people will likely argue that the cases of Mr. Libby and Mr. Berger vary in degree, since the former outed a covert CIA operative working on developing intelligence on Iraq's and later Iran's nuclear weapon's programs, while the latter only destroyed documents which may have been classified. However, there is no difference. They both abused their power and their security clearances, that alone disqualifies them from ever being entrusted with nation's highest secrets.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Sen. Obama, hitting the right notes on Cuba

In an Op-ed in the Miami Herald (h/t Steve Clemons at The Washington Note), Sen. Obama argues that the Bush administration's policy of "restricting the ability of Cuban Americans to visit and send money to their relatives in Cuba" has failed and that it is time for change. The title of the piece is "Our main goal: Freedom in Cuba." There Sen. Obama begins by talking about his father and his journey to the US. He does this as a means of demonstrating the powerful draw that America's freedom and opportunity (our soft power) have exerted on people the world over and how we can use it as an asset in bringing change to Cuba. He essentially argues for engagement with the island and its leadership, looking forward to the Post-Fidel era.

Drawing on lessons from the Clinton administration, Sen. Obama points to how during that period Cubans and dissidents had more political space than at any other time since the Cuban revolution. He credits the policies that allowed travel to the island by Cuban Americans as an extremely important component of what he dubs, the "Cuban Spring." While acknowledging the fact that the Castro regime put an end to that brief opening with the jailing of dissidents in 2003, Sen. Obama argues that we need to reestablish that connection, because it is pivotal in fostering reforms, and eventually grass roots democracy on the island. Finally, he states that if the post-Castro regime shows a willingness to embrace democratic change, his administration (in bilateral talks) will commit the US to normalizing relations and easing the embargo that has been in place for the last five decades.

He is not the first to stake out such a position. Sen. Dodd recently guest-posted at the Washington Note on this topic. Laying out the case for change more clearly, Sen Dodd argued that

the United States' most potent weapon against totalitarianism is the influence of ordinary American citizens. They are some of the best ambassadors we have, and the free exchange of ideas and the interaction between Americans and Cubans are important ways to encourage democracy in Cuba.

For more than forty-six years, the United States has maintained an isolationist policy toward Cuba, which I believe has not achieved its intended objectives, namely to hasten a peaceful and democratic transition on the Island of Cuba. Rather, it has solidified the authoritarian control of Fidel Castro, and has adversely affected the already miserable living conditions of 11 million innocent men, women, and children on the Island.

In an earlier post, I wrote about this and noted Raul Castro's attempt to reach out to the US in a speech commemorating the Cuban Revolution. There he stated as follows:

"If the next U.S. government puts arrogance aside and decides to talk in a civilized fashion, that is welcome. If not, we are prepared to continue facing their hostile policy for another 50 years."

While not optimal bargaining positions, these comments, by at least two Presidential candidates and the presumptive head of Cuba, show a willingness to improve relations between the two countries. In my post, I commented that a change from the old policy of containment that had entrenched Fidel in power was unlikely to change due to the pressures of election time, and the importance of winning the Cuban-American vote in Florida. I'm glad to be proven wrong. Still, as Clemons notes in his piece, Sen. Obama does not go far enough, since we should be throwing out the old policy and starting anew. Raul so far, seems to be more of a pragmatist than his brother, more willing to tolerate dissent and embrace reform. Still, while the elder Castro continues to live, the younger will be constrained in what he can do. A shift in American policy would go a long way to increasing the prospects for change within Cuba. That said, it is unlikely that Cuba or the post-Castro regime will be democratic any time soon. The more likely outcome will be more along the lines of what Barnett has described in his blog; economic reforms now leading to social and political reforms in the future.

As Clemson notes, however, this proposal is likely to play well only among a segment of the Cuban-American population that consistently votes Democrat. Any talk of an opening or a change from the current policy will not play well with the rest of the Cuban-American population. Given the importance of Florida in the general election, we may see some back-tracking from Sen. Obama (I hope not) should he become the Democratic candidate for President.

Sen. Obama is certainly trying to increase his image as the candidate of change and this helps him a lot. However, the inexperience will likely continue to hurt him as we move forward. Still, it is refreshing to hear a major candidate talking about a change in policy toward the Cuban regime, even if limited in scope.

Follow-up

As I indicated when I first posted this entry, Sen. Obama's op-ed on Cuba was probably not going to be welcomed by many Cuban-Americans in Florida. Already, we get this from Gateway Pundit's less than biased assesment:

Cuban Americans were not happy with Barak Obamas comments this week on "surrendering" to the Castro regime. Today they let him know itat his campaign stop in Miami.

One sign reads- "Obama You Surrender to Castro"

Yet, the policy they've supported and advocated for the last fifty years is the one responsible for keeping Castro in power.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Blogging on the Democratic party's primary debate (Updated)

In this post I won't critique or focus too much on the issues dealt with in the debate and the questions asked so far. However, what has prompted me to write this after a lull of almost a month is this: It's 8:07 pm right now, an hour into the debate, and this is the first question by Brian Williams (to Sen. Clinton) on the War on Terror. None of the candidates has even mentioned it, even with regard to Iraq and the Middle East.

I was a bit disappointed with someone I respect greatly, Sen. Joseph Biden. Why? When asked

"Senator Biden, from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, what three nations, other than Iraq, represent, to you, the biggest threat to the United States?

His answer was: The biggest threat to the United States is, right now, North Korea.

Iran not as big a threat, but a long-term threat.

And quite frankly, the tendency of Putin to move in a totalitarian direction, which would unhinge all that's going on positively in Europe.

To be fair, this is a good answer, however, I did not like either the thrust of the question which ignored to a large extent the biggest threat that we currently face, al Qaeda and the Islamist Jihadist movement it represents, but I also expected Sen. Biden to correct it by bringing up the concept of the threat posed by non-state groups such as al Qaeda. Perhaps I'm demanding too much, but given the impact and damage that this group has had with its system perturbation, it should not be ignored nor placed below threats that emanate from nation-states. Why am I coming down so hard on this issue, because Republicans have done a pretty good job of arguing that they understand the nature of the post-9/11 world, while the democrats do not. While I disagree that Republicans, particularly this president, really understand the threats of the post-9/11 world, I do think that Democrats do themselves no favor by avoiding, or not adequately demonstrating that they understand that non-state threats such as al Qaeda are out there and have to be dealt with.

Sen. Obama came close to mentioning al Qaeda, but he stopped short and mentioned only the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. None of the other candidates, who answered this question, came close to mentioning al Qaeda as one of the biggest threats facing our country.

The two questions so far asked on al Qaeda and the GWOT are on Mayor Giuliani's comment on al Qaeda, and whether there even exists a war on terror. So far, the answers have not impressed me, and fill me with a sense of gloom since the answers are unlikely to shake the belief among those of us who are serious about our nation's security that the Democrats just don't get it. (I say this as a Democrat, as someone who has looked forward to this debate and who has leaned favorable to Sen. Biden, Sen. Obama, and Sen. Clinton.

I should mention that as I finished this post, Sen. Clinton finally addressed the issue of al Qaeda and said she supported the president when he went after al Qaeda, but (and paraphrasing here)she drew the line when he went after a country that had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11 (read Iraq).

Finally, I should say as a means of clarification, when I criticize the Democrats for not focusing on al Qaeda or the War on Terror, I do so mostly because I want an alternative to this administration's policies with regard to the most important issue facing our country. We were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11/2001, that is the main reason we went into Afghanistan, and a war we cannot withdraw from or end our engagement in as easily or quickly as we can (and even this is debatable) from Iraq. We need an alternative to the bluster of the present administration and so far (1 hour and 24 minutes into the debate) they have all failed to provide one.

Update

I just wanted to note that Sen. Biden did say something that did remind me of why I respect him. When Rep. Kucinich and Mike Gravel were talking about peace and end to war, Sen. Biden was almost alone in saying, stop the "happy talk," the fact is that there are times when war is needed, Afghanistan was justified, Darfur is justified, there's happy talk and there's real life. He also seemed to be channeling Barnett, when he said

" Think of the folly of what this administration has acted on. It has said, "By the way, give up your weapons, the very thing that's us from attacking you. And once you give them up, then we're going to take you out."

That's the logic of this administration. That's why we've lost respect all over the world."

All in all the debate didn't offer much, and most times candidates seemed to be repeating talking points. However, I do think that the debate did give 2nd tier candidates like Sen. Biden, Sen. Dodd and Gov. Richardson a chance to show what they were about. Despite my criticism of Sen. Biden, I do think he helped his image greatly. Hopefully his numbers will start climbing soon.

Watching MSNBC, it seems clear that Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama are seen as having lost in this debate. Sen. Obama fumbled the question of what he would do if two American cities were attacked and we knew it was al Qaeda, while Sen. Clinton nailed it by saying she would retaliate. Sen. Edwards, fumbled on the question of his $400 haircut and generally did not rise to the challenge.

Before ending, I just want to point out that even in the question of what they would do if we were attacked again, Sen. Clinton's response that she would retaliate is based on the notion that there's a physical place where we can attack. In truth, the answer is more complicated, because were we attacked, a clear target would become the NWFP in Pakistan, which if carried out would guarantee the collapse of the Musharaf regime. That is why I wanted more of a discussion on al Qaeda and non-state threats, since such a discussion would have brought this important aspect of the war to bear, and would have allowed the candidates perhaps a better way to frame the issue and thereby demonstrate that they truly understand national security in the post-9/11 world.

Transcript of the Democratic Primary Debate, April 2007

Read More...

Snippet only...

The side we should always be on

Thomas Barnett gets it. He wrote this post in response to some of his readers, who questioned him, as to why he did not always side with the President during the surge. As usual, he is able to capture better than most, the reasons why blind support for a policy, administration or political party is never in the interest of our country. Rather than tell you about about what Barnett wrote, I'll just let you read it yourself. Below, are some of the most important excerpts from his substantive post.

The side I've always been on

I supported Bush's Big Bang decision to topple Saddam. To me, it was never about WMD, which is an overblown fear (it's not the ultimate Rubicon now that global war is off the agenda, it's just a super-weapon that we must deal with). To me, it was about a rule-set breaker who flouted the will of the global community for years on end.

...Bush refused to take advantage of the changes he himself set so effectively in motion in the region. There was a huge groundswell of change across the Middle East the first 18 months following the war. When he had the chance to start regional dialogues that addressed the real fights of the region (Iran v Israel, Iran v Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda v House of Saud), he did not. He stubbornly stayed the course in Iraq, pretending an internal solution was possible in what quickly and logically became a regional conflict that all players on all sides are effectively conflating in a host of asymmetrical ways.

Bush's first great answer was to rerun the entire WMD drama on Iran.

Bush's second great answer was the surge. As I wrote several times earlier: the surge with serious regional diplomacy--that I would gladly support.

But the surge without serious regional and international diplomacy--that I do not support.

I do not support it because it is designed to [fail.]

I do not support it because I think it's Bush's ruse to Iranify the Long War.

I think that if Bush attacks Iran on his watch, he'll screw up the Big Bang permanently and could quite easily trigger a long-term rivalry with Russia and China in the region.

...People who act like you either support Bush's mismanagement of this postwar or you're un-American are myopic in the extreme. They're acting like we should put our entire team on the field for the extra point when we need to score a couple more touchdowns before the game clock runs out.

We are told: Why negotiate with people who don't want us to win?

I will tell you why: because we're not going to win--or lose. We're either going to keep the Big Bang rolling or we're going to let it die and let the region go right back to what it was. Not every play in this game is going to be for positive yardage. Sometimes we'll punt and play for field position.

And yeah, when we screw up royally, we'll take our medicine.

We've screwed up Iraq (outside of Kurdistan) and if we want to cut down our exposure, we'll have to accept many compromises. You can get mad about that and blame Bush or you can get mad about that and pretend the Left "stabbed us in the back." But stubborn is as stubborn does and Bush made all the big decisions, so whine about that or move along, because when the Dems tie his hands now it's not about preventing some illusory "win" in Iraq, it's about stopping a strategically idiotic war with Iran, which won't fix Iraq but make our entire effort there to date a complete waste of blood and treasure.

Bush, in my mind, has no idea how to win at this point. He pretends we can screw up and then take no pain for our efforts, so he eschews negotiations with people who have no intention of helping anyone but themselves (duh!). So both they, and everyone else involved in Iraq will continue to screw us, and both our blood and our treasure will continue to go largely wasted until Bush loses the stubbornness or simply leaves office.

...I want to win. I just don't pretend we can come back on a single drive from being behind several scores.

...The point right now is how we move ahead, not how we save this presidency.

...I believe in the United States, not in any one leader.

And I want to win in the end, not on the next play.

So let me be clear as crystal: my guys never leave office. They are there administration after administration. They know exactly what I'm about and I know exactly what they're about, and we get along just fine.

The politicians, meanwhile, get exactly what they deserve.

This captures much of what I believe, including my reasons for supporting the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003. It also captures in a nutshell the conviction that drives my politics, mainly, that when all is said and done, the decision of who to support politically is never about party loyalty or affiliation, but rather, about what is best for our country. Idealistic? Perhaps, but that is one of the main foundations upon which this country was built; An idealism that drove us to build a government that was better than any that had existed previously. Sure, we have not always lived up to that ideal, in fact there have been times when we have failed miserably, but that has not stopped us from trying.

Read More...

Snippet only...

The verdict is in...

Scooter Libby has been found guilty on four of five counts against him. According to CNN Scooter Libby has been found guilty on the following counts:

Count one: Obstruction of justice

Alleges that Libby intentionally deceived the grand jury about how he learned, and "disclosed to the media," information about Valerie Plame Wilson's employment by the CIA.

Obstruction of justice is interference in one of the three branches of government. It can include improperly influencing a juror, stealing or altering a record and obstructing a criminal investigation.

Count two: Making a false statement

Alleges that Libby intentionally gave FBI agents false information about a conversation he had with NBC's Tim Russert regarding Valerie Plame Wilson, who is married to Joseph Wilson.

This crime covers activities that might not be illegal if not for associated false statements. To convict on a false statement charge, prosecutors must prove the defendant willfully lied or concealed a fact.

Count four: Perjury

Alleges that Libby knowingly provided false testimony in court about a conversation he had with Russert.

Perjury is willfully or knowingly making false statements under oath. The sworn statements may be written or oral and need not be made in court. They may be made in a deposition or in written testimony. To be convicted, prosecutors must prove the accused intended to give a false statement. Making a mistake does not constitute perjury. Also, a person can be convicted of perjury if it can be proven he or she gave contradictory statements. It is not necessary to prove which statement was false.

Count five: Perjury

Alleges that Libby knowingly provided false testimony in court about his conversation with reporters regarding Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA employment.

The Jury, however, found Scooter Libby not guilty of one count of making false statements to the FBI:

Count three: Making a false statement

Alleges that Libby knowingly gave the FBI false information about what he had told reporter Matt Cooper of Time magazine regarding Valerie Plame Wilson.

The table above comes from CNN's Interactive table of Charges against Libby. I'm posting it, because I think it can help many of those who have not been following the case closely understand the implications of the verdict.

In July of 2005, I wrote three posts on the CIA leak case and argued that it was the result of political hacks who confused the good of the party for the good of the country. I argued, in that vain that we needed to get to the bottom of how Ms. Plame's identity was revealed and punish those people involved. This is a good step in that direction. Mr. Libby has been found guilty of obstructing the investigation and willfully lying under oath in that pursuit. Now it remains to be seen whether the president will pardon Mr. Libby before he leaves office. To do so, it seems to me, would be a betrayal to the intelligence officers who risk their lives to acquire the information necessary for the protection of our security.

Further thoughts

I've been thinking about this conclusion and think I may be overreaching. As Dave of The Glittering Eye argues, the case did not prove that someone in the administration purposefully leaked Valerie Plame's identity to the media. This as it did raise more questions about the Vice President's role. Rather, it reinforced one of the most important precepts of our legal system; lying under oath is unacceptable and illegal. As Fitzgerald himself put it, "any lie under oath is serious. We cannot tolerate perjury..."

That is the main reason why the President cannot pardon Mr. Libby, because in obstructing the investigation and lying under oath he attacked our very legal system. As it has been said time and again, it's not the crime that gets you, but the cover up.

Still, if I was a NOC operative such as Ms. Plame, I would want to know that my government would do everything to pursue the person or people responsible for exposing my cover and possibly putting my life in danger. For these people, who risk their lives to give the United States the information necessary to protect our national security, it is the least they can expect.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Brainstorming: The war on terror

I began this post as a response to Marc’s post at American Future. Once I finished writing it, I realized that it was too long to be only a response to a post, and deserved to become a post of its own as well. Hence I am posting it here. Also, I think I went off on a different line of thinking as that which Marc was getting to, as the articles main focus was on Charity and Terrorism as they pertain to Hamas. However, the snippet on his blog got me thinking and what's below is the end result. I’m still trying to return to my regular blogging, unfortunately time has not allowed and events have not allowed me that luxury. I should be able to restart once again soon. Till then, this post I hope gives you something to think about.

Morris is correct when he says that that is how “they” perceive what is going on, the clash of civilizations that is what Osama bin Laden has sought to incite ever since the Saudi King invited American troops to the holy soil of Saudi Arabia. In many of his statements and interviews, Osama has publicly stated that his primary duty in this life is to incite Muslims to jihad, to awaken them to the battle between Islam on the one hand, and the Judeo-Christian crusaders on the other. As Michael Scheuer has pointed out time and again, Osama does not believe that he will defeat the US, his plan is to foment a revolution across the Muslim world in which all Muslims will rise against the US, and the despots we support. It will take time, an insurgency campaign always does.

As in all insurgencies, the insurgent movement seeks to convince the “subject” population that the despot or the powerful are as evil and autocratic as the insurgents say they are. In our case, bin Laden and al Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11 with the intent of drawing a line in the sand, between those who were for the ummah, and those who were against it. In addition, the attacks were supposed to bring the US into the Muslim world to exert its military power, thereby proving to the “subject” populations that they were indeed subject to an infidel power. Once the US invaded Afghanistan, bin Laden hoped that at least some Muslims across the Muslim world would rise to fight against the Superpower now occupying a Muslim country. Some did, so although we successfully accomplished our mission (to topple the Taliban and drive al Qaeda out of its Afghan sanctuary), so did Osama in inciting more Muslims to rise against the US, and in “defense” of Islam. However, for a time our victory was the better as not as many Muslims as Osama thought would rise actually lifted arms in “defense” of Islam or the banner of al Qaeda. For a few months things seemed to be going well for the US, and very poorly for the jihadists as the Afghans set out to establish their own government, al Qaeda was on the run, and the US succeeded in its initial steps to root out the al Qaeda terrorists from Afghanistan. Then came Iraq.

Before I continue, I want to point out that I supported both our efforts in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Although I knew that al Qaeda wanted American boots on the ground in Muslim soil, we had no choice to send them if we hoped to root them out of Afghanistan and put an end to their inf