35 years ago, + 1 day: the break-in

I meant to blog about this yesterday, but I was just too tired to blog after we got home from visiting my dad in the Poconos.

Thirty-five years ago yesterday, five men broke into the Watergate complex, home of the Democratic National Headquarters, and were caught by police after security guard Frank Willis noticed tape over a door latch (put there by the burglars to keep it from locking). The burglary touched off a cascade of events that led to the downfall and resignation of President Nixon.

Editor & Publisher had an interesting piece late last week about the anniversary that asks the question, "Would the Watergate story have been broken today?" A sample:

If Watergate had broken today, chances are someone would have posted a news story with inaccurate information too early, or the in-depth reporting needed might have been neglected in favor of quicker, more immediate, and more broad-interest scoops. That is not to say that the Post, still among the best daily papers and Web sites in the industry, would not have been on top of the story. But there is no doubt that online and immediacy demands of today could have impacted the careful, slow-building and meticulous coverage.

As for anonymous sourcing, it is clear the recent efforts to penalize confidential sources, and reporters who use them, may have an impact on reporting another Watergate today. Famed Deep Throat source W. Mark Felt, who helped guide Woodward during his parking garage meetings, may have felt more threatened with legal problems, and possibly jail, had he cooperated in today's climate -- as would Woodward and Bernstein.

Who knows, someone with a cell phone camera working in the parking garage might have snapped a photo of Woodward chatting with this unknown source. Or a blogger would have blown the whistle.

It's not an easy question to contemplate, because much of the cynicism and partisanship that exists today can be traced back to Watergate and Vietnam. (It's not a stretch to say that without Vietnam, there would have been no Watergate Scandal.)

The idealist in me likes to think that somehow the truth would still come out if such a political firestorm happened today, but the realist in me says "no way."

Why?

Because Watergate-caliber stuff has been happening in this country for over six years now, and because of the poisoned political atmosphere in Washington, the rise of Fox News and the pervasiveness of right-wing radio and the consolidation of our media, it's highly unlikely that such a scandal would be revealed today unless some major whistle blowers stepped forward.

In today's partisan atmosphere, can you imagine how harshly Woodstein would be crucified by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Insanity? They'd be labeled "reporters with an agenda, out to get the president." Period.

And that's one of the main reasons why the Bush administration has gotten away with the mind-boggling things it has since January 2001 - when a legit news story comes out that's a major embarrassment to the administration, either the people reporting it get attacked, or the administration manipulates the media with another terrorism or War in Iraq story. Remember the timing of the Saddam Hussein verdict?

A few examples of the people who've been smeared: Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism chief from presidents Reagan through George W. Bush; former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill; the U.S. attorneys who were fired; a number of former army generals who served in Iraq; John DiIulio, the former head of Bush's stalled effort to aid religious charities; and Matthew Dowd, a former Bush staffer who played key roles in Bush's "victories" in 2000 and 2004.

Hey, the list goes on and on. The Karl Rove template on whistle blowers and defectors is simple - impugn the integrity of the turncoats, so at least the possibility is raised that they might be speaking out because of a missed-out promotion, or a political ax to grind.

So, in the end, I don't think Watergate could be exposed like it was from 1972-1974. Our mainstream media is too corrupted, consolidated and focused on pop culture pap, and very few journalists do honest, thorough reporting anymore. The norm now sadly seems to be "report now, and we'll correct it if we need to." In other words, report now, verify later, but only if someone screams and complains loud enough that we got the story wrong.

Think I'm being too cynical? Then you haven't been paying attention to the presidential candidates' press coverage so far, specifically on the Democrats. From Hillary Clinton's wardrobe and ancient marital problems to John Edwards' "$400 haircuts," the Dems, so far, have been subjected to a great deal of superficial, biased and irrelevant reporting.

On the flip-side, candidates like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have largely gotten a pass. Giuliani, a man who has profited greatly and shamelessly from 9-11, made about $10 million in speeches last year, and his speaking contract demanded all sorts of ridiculous luxuries; use of a Gulfstream IV Jet among them, along with a $100,000 speaking fee. And the press is bitching about a $400 haircut? Please.

Anyway, Joe Strupp, the author of the E&P piece, ended with a note of optimism:

I'm not saying all is lost in the realm of true investigative journalism. A look at the recent Pulitzer Prizes found a welcomed return, in many categories, to investigative packages and stories, with news microscopes focused on issues ranging from housing scandals in Miami to oceanic problems in the Pacific.

Those are some good examples, no doubt, but I still maintain that in the age of infotainment, there is much, much more horrific and superficial journalism in our mainstream media than even adequate reporting.

The Tenet 60 Minutes interview

Please note: if you cannot view these YouTube videos, go to Crooks & Liars Here to view the Tenet 60 Minutes interview in two parts.

Here is the 60 Minutes George Tenet interview, in four parts. I have no idea how long it will remain up on YouTube - CBS clips have a tendency to be removed on a consistent basis.

After only watching the first couple of minutes, if your reaction is anything like mine, you will view Tenet as a combative, tragic, incompetent government bureaucrat who in many ways was caught up in the incompetence of a criminally negligent administration. Maybe that's harsh, but that's my impression before reading his book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, which I just bought yesterday and will start reading very soon, maybe tonight.

Here's Part II...

It's tough to not get angry listening to Tenet. "Have you ever seen the terrain in Tora Bora?" No, Mr. Tenet, I haven't, but one would think the greatest armed forces on the planet would have the resources and means to capture or kill bin Laden. Tenet has plenty of excuses, and his combative, defensive, intentionally ambiguous words about the CIA's torture methods are troubling, but I'm also aware that I know nothing compared to Tenet about the War on Terror. Yes, I've no doubt that extreme methods need to be used on occasion, but we're America - we aren't supposed to torture people. I don't understand why that idea is so foreign to people.

I'm not without sympathy for Tenet, but I'm convinced he believes his own lies, too; to listen to him, the CIA deserves no blame for 9-11 at all. Revolting.

Part III...

Here, Tenet has more credibility, because what he says about the administration ignoring the evidence, and twisting his "slam dunk" comment for its own PR purposes rings true, without question. I'm not basing that on partisan dislike for the Bush administration, I'm basing that on other books I've read on the subject, including Bob Woodward's State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III; Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror; and Ron Suskind's book on Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty : George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill.

The footage of Colin Powell giving his speech at the U.N. is particularly painful. I remember reading in Newsweek Magazine a stunning cover story about how Powell at first refused to read what White House speech writers wrote for him to say at the U.N., saying, "this speech is bullshit." It's tragic that Tenet couldn't put a stop to Powell's speech, which, from what I've read, contained a whole pack of inconsistencies and assertions based on the flimsiest of evidence.

Part IV...

Who to believe? Tenet, or the Bush administration, about the etymology of "slam dunk"? Tough to pick one there. Someone's lying.

His defensive nature about his acceptance of the Presidential Medal of Freedom is pretty telling. It's worth repeating - he could have turned the medal down. Interesting how he justifies himself: "I was accepting the medal for the work we did in Afghanistan, not for Iraq."

Medals, and their recipients, cannot and should not discriminate.

One cannot and should not be eligible for a medal some of the time, Mr. Tenet.

A Tenet teaser for Sunday night

This is a short excerpt of a 60 Minutes interview with former CIA Director George Tenet that will air tomorrow night.

I've already written that I can't wait to read the man's book, and I'm looking forward to it more and more with each passing excerpt and story that appears about it in the press.

Tenet's book and all of the publicity surrounding it has got to be very embarrassing for the Bush White House, if for no other reason than Bush's decision to decorate him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest honor a civilian can earn.

I guess I have to give Tenet a little credit there, then, because that gives him some cover when the administration will no doubt try to smear him. However, Tenet deserves some scorn for that, too; he didn't have to accept the award.

"Okay, you've got your medal, so mum's the word, okay?"

Tenet deserves more than a little blame for 9-11 happening on his watch. Many have called it the greatest intelligence failure in history, and I'd have to agree; the only other thing that even comes close is the attack on Pearl Harbor. But again, it will be interesting to see how the Bush White House spins that one, because it can't blame Tenet for 9-11 without Bush taking some of that same heat. It's probably not a very pleasant weekend to be around the president. Boo hoo. It's not a pleasant weekend to be in Iraq, either.

Speaking of Iraq, Tenet's take on who's responsible for another brilliant intel failure - that of Iraq's phantom WMDs - should make for good reading. There's evidence aplenty that Tenet was being leaned on to provide the "intelligence" surrounding Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction." Other books and many other former administration officials have outlined that Bush decided to go to war, then he went to find the intelligence to back up his decision. Richard Clark and Paul O'Neill have both outlined that in detail in their respective books, and Bob Woodward has done it in multiple books, pieces and interviews.

Tenet's much-anticipated book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, goes on sale Monday.

I have to get this one - it's my #1 must-read of the summer.

I'll bring you the 60 Minutes interview when I can get footage of it early next week.

New Tenet book should be a solid read

I'm putting together a list of books I want to get through this summer, and former CIA Director George Tenet's book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, will be somewhere on that list.

Tenet is a study is contradictions, in my view, especially when dealing with the run-up to the War in Iraq, as well as the 9-11 attacks. You pick those two scabs, you uncover a lot of puss. There's no question in my mind that he deserves to shoulder some of the blame for 9-11, the greatest intelligence failure in U.S. history.

As for the War in Iraq, he deserves some blame, but he also jumped on a grenade for the Bush administration. We've all heard about his mindless assertion that the intelligence proving Iraq's WMD fetish was "a slam dunk." Hell, it wasn't even a lay-up.

So, I'm very interested to read his side of the story on these two critical events and what his perspective is. I wonder if it will be a "tell-all" book of sorts, much like Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies and Ron Suskind's book on Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill. (By the way, both books are excellent - if you haven't had a chance to read them, I highly recommend both.) If Tenet's book is on par with those two, we're in for a good read, and some additional insight into the schizophrenic workings of the Bush White House.

The more I think about it, Tenet's book just vaulted to hear the top of my reading list. I'll bring you my thoughts later this summer after I've digested this much-anticipated book.

P.S. - Keep an eye on the White House's reaction to this book. If it's in the vein of Clarke's and O'Neill's, the question won't be if they'll Swiftboat Tenet, but when.

Tenet's book goes on sale April 30.