The Scribe

Who owns and manages US ports

NPR:  "Most US Ports Are Foreign-Run"

Host:  Don Gonyea

Intro:  With Democratic and Republican politicians challenging a Bush administration plan to hire a company from Dubai to manage terminals at six American ports, the company this weekend said it was willing to wait 45 days to allow for a more extensive security investigation.  That's according to AP.  Several foreign politicians have suggested that no foreign companies should manage operations at US ports.  NPR's Adam Davidson looked into how many American port terminals are managed by foreign companies and what it would take to insure that only American companies manage American ports.

Adam Davidson:  There are about 15 major ports in the US.  Each is divided into a handful of separately operated terminals.  That makes roughly 100 terminals.  SSA Marine is the single biggest US-owned terminal operator. 

Bud Waters:  We operate seven of those terminals.

Davidson:  Bud Waters is SSA Vice President.  And let me repeat what he just said.  The biggest US-owned terminal operator manages seven terminals.  The next biggest?  That's Maher Terminals in Elizabeth, NJ -- they manage one terminal.  Waters says about a dozen are managed by city or state governments. 

Waters:  Other than that, the rest of the terminals, which comprises about 80% of those terminals we're talking about, are operated by foreign entities, primarily shipping lines. 

Davidson:  So -- US companies have 8!  Foreign companies have 80!  Companies managing US terminals are all over the world -- in China, Denmark, Singapore, South Korea.  Could SSA Marine, the nation's biggest terminal manager, take over a significant number of those foreign-managed ports?

Waters: [laughing]  Well, it'd be an interesting challenge!

Davidson:  It wouldn't be a challenge, says Peter Tirschwell, publisher of the Journal of Commerce.  It would be nearly impossible.

Peter Tirschwell:  It would be an extraordinary upheaval, so large that it would be difficult to even contemplate it.

Davidson:  Imagine that Congress does mandate that only US companies can operate terminals in US ports, Tirschwell says.  There would be two options and neither is good.  The first is for the handful of existing US companies to take over all foreign-owned terminals.  That, he says, is simply inconceivable.  These companies would have to instantly grow to ten times their current size.  The other option is for US companies in other industries to start offering terminal operation services.  That's equally hard to imagine, Tirschwell says.

Tirschwell:  It's a very complex business and the companies that do it -- they all do it on the basis of years of management and expertise literally refined over decades.  It's not the type of business which outsiders traditionally enter.

Davidson:  Tirschwell says this isn't just an issue for people who happen to work at ports.  The US way of life -- our economy -- is based on the fast and free flow of internationally traded goods.  A dramatic transformation of the US port system would all but certainly interrupt that trade, he says.  And hurt the US economy.  Joe King, former chief of the terrorism unit at US Customs, says government has to secure our ports even if it comes at a cost.

Joe King:  There is always a debate in the US government between trade and security.  In the last twenty years, trade is winning. 

Davidson: Even King says that foreign ownership is inevitable.  Too much security could cause real pain. 

King:  You'd have containers backed up so you could walk across the Pacific Ocean, they'd be so tightly packed.   

Davidson:  Some, like Senator Hillary Clinton, have suggested that the US should allow foreign companies to run US terminals but forbid companies owned by foreign governments.  That's almost equally impossible, says Tirschwell of the Journal of Commerce. He points out that foreign governments have interests in many US ports.  The government of Singapore owns most of a company that operates terminals in Los Angeles and elsewhere.  Two Chinese companies, both with close ties to the Chinese government, manage terminals in New York, Long Beach, and other places.  And the government of Venezuela owns all or part of marine terminal management at ports in Pennsylvania and Maine. 

Lapham: The case for impeachment: “Misrepresentation, Chicane, and Over-reaching”

Lewis Lapham, in the March issue of Harper’s, makes "the case for impeachment.”

He takes as his text the resolution John Conyers introduced in the House last December (182 pages, 1,022 footnotes), “inviting it to form ‘a select committee to investigate the Administration’s intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.”

Lapham writes:

The nearly complete silence raised the question as to what it was the congressman had in mind, and to whom did he think he was speaking? In time of war few propositions would seem as futile as the attempt to impeach a president whose political party controls the Congress; as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee stationed on Capitol Hill for the last forty years, Representative Conyers presumably knew that to expect the Republican caucus in the House to take note of his invitation, much less arm it with the power of subpoena, was to expect a miracle of democratic transformation and rebirth not unlike the one looked for by President Bush under the prayer rugs in Baghdad. Unless the congressman intended some sort of symbolic gesture, self-serving and harmless, what did he hope to prove or to gain?

Conyers knew damn well what he was doing.  He wanted the recognition of Bush’s illegalities and violations of the Constitution on the record... now.

“I don’t think enough people know how much damage this administration can do to their civil liberties in a very short time.  What would you have me do? Grumble and complain? Make cynical jokes? Throw up my hands and say that under the circumstances nothing can be done?  At least I can muster the facts, establish a record, tell the story that ought to be front-page news.”

The details of the Administration’s determination to create war out of whole cloth are well known and documented in Conyer’s resolution.  For example:

The Conyers report doesn't return to the President's focus on Iraq until March 2002, when it finds him peering into the office of Condoleezza Rice, the national security advisor, to say, "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."

Lapham admits he was dubious, as most of still are, I think, that Bush could ever be impeached:

Before reading the report, I wouldn't have expected to find myself thinking that such a course of action was either likely or possible; after reading the report, I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man. We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country's good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instill in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world's evil, a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation's wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies. In a word, a criminal—known to be armed and shown to be dangerous. Under the three-strike rule available to the courts in California, judges sentence people to life in jail for having stolen from Wal-Mart a set of golf clubs or a child's tricycle. Who then calls strikes on President Bush, and how many more does he get before being sent down on waivers to one of the Texas Prison Leagues?

Once impeachment became part of the vocabulary of the public with respect to George Bush, Congress was forced to recognize the possibility.  Arlen Specter didn’t dismiss it but pointed out that “Impeachment is a remedy... [and] the principle remedy... under our society is to pay a political price.”

However, as Lapham writes: “Would that it were so.”

The Bush Administration doesn't believe in the theory of parliamentary government, much less in the notion of paying political prices. Its agents prefer the more frugal and efficient practice of stealing elections, gagging the voice of the Democratic minority in Congress, slandering people who presume to doubt either its wisdom or its virtue, conducting the business of government behind closed doors, alone with its Bibles and its pet Bismarcks in soundproof rooms. On the off chance that any God-fearing citizen didn't know what to expect, the President clarified the position in late December and again in early January, responding to what he clearly regarded as annoying questions about his directive to the NSA. Yes, he had told the NSA to take precautions, had done so more than once, would do so again. That was his job, to defend the American people; in time of war the Constitution gave him the right to do as he pleased, so did the act of Congress passed on September 14, 2001, three days after the loss of the World Trade Center. The fact that he was compelled to address the subject was "shameful," impertinent, and unpatriotic on the part of the reporter who inquired about "unchecked executive power" and ascribed to him "some kind of dictatorial position ... which I strongly reject." Such questions also were dangerous, apt to bring on more terrorist attacks in the manner of 9/11. The latter point was repeatedly reinforced by Vice President Cheney, who firmly reminded audiences in New York and Washington—audiences composed primarily of lobbyists for the country's media syndicates and weapons manufacturers—that we live in a dangerous world, demanding a robust executive authority in the White House to ward off the forces of moral anarchy and social chaos.

Bush protests: “We’re at war.  We must protect America’s secrets.”

But Lapham see it quite differently:

No, the country isn't at war, and it's not America's secrets that the President seeks to protect. The country is threatened by free-booting terrorists unaligned with a foreign government or an enemy army; the secrets are those of the Bush Administration, chief among them its determination to replace a democratic republic with something more safely totalitarian. The fiction of permanent war allows it to seize, in the name of the national security, the instruments of tyranny. The question posed to the assembly is whether enough people care, and, if so, how do they respond when, in the language of the Declaration of Independence, "a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism."

The essay is carefully documented throughout. Some of the footnotes are worth including here on their own.  For example, what in retrospect seems to confirm the notion of Colin Powell’s wretched cowardice:

Powell occasionally complained about the falsehoods the administration obliged him to tell; a few days before delivering the UN speech he mentioned his unhappiness to Cheney, who told him, “Your poll numbers are in the seventies, you can afford to lose a few points.”

And, when Lapham includes “conspiracy to commit fraud” in Bush’s rap sheet, he adds this reminder:

The legal precedent for finding a conspiracy to commit fraud against the United States rests on the Supreme Court ruling Hammerschmidt v. United States, which upholds the charge against individuals who obstruct lawful government functions "by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the over-reaching of those charged with carrying out the government intention.

2/7/06:NPR: Biden on partisan politics, secrecy, Iran, Supreme Court

2/07/06: NPR: Fresh Air: Joe Biden on presidential power, secrecy, Iran. Hamas, Supreme Court, partisan politics, Gingrich revolution, Democrats' prospects, John McCain, and a run for the presidency

Fresh Air interviewer:  Terry Gross

Terry Gross:  My guest, Joe Biden, has witnessed a lot of changes in the Senate.  When he was elected, in November 1972, he was a couple of weeks shy of 30, the minimum age he needed to reach before being sworn in.  Now he's a senior member of the Senate.  Biden is a Democrat from Delaware.  The National Journal's Almanac of American Politics describes his voting record as moderate to liberal.  As a member of the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs Committees, he's been focused on the recent Supreme Court hearings and the war in Iraq.  He chaired the Judiciary Committee from 1987 to 1995.  Back in December, when Republican Senator John McCain was our guest, we promised that we would soon be joined by Senator Biden...  Biden, like McCain, is considering a run for the presidency.  He ran in the Democratic primary in 1988.  We recorded our interview yesterday.  Earlier in the day Biden questioned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during the Judiciary Committee hearings into presidential power and the NSA's secret surveillance program  Senator Biden, welcome to Fresh Air!

Joe Biden:  I'm delighted to be here!

Gross:  Let's start with the hearings on presidential power and the NSA secret surveillance program.  You've had your chance to question Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.  What do you most want to know about this secret NSA surveillance program?

Biden:  Terry, I'd like to know what they're doing!  Not merely whether it's constitutional.  What are they doing?  And I asked that of the Attorney General:  could he tell me with absolute certainty he knows that no email is being opened, no telephone is being tapped unless it emanates from foreign soil and is emanating from a suspected Al Qaeda terrorist and/or one of their sidekicks.  And he said he couldn't guarantee that.  I asked who could.  Who could?  And he didn't have an answer for me.

Gross:  Is it possible that we need to have a much wider net and not be confident for certain that somebody's Al Qaeda, but just have a hunch and be able to tap phones -- for our own security?

Biden:  The answer is yes.  And I was around years ago, Terry, and was a co-sponsor of the so-called FISA -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- back in the '70's. I was a member of the Intelligence Committee at the time and the Judiciary Committee.  And that was intended to meet the needs for secrecy at the time and to be able to be expanded to meet ongoing needs.  But the real question here is, who is making the judgment as to who a terrorist is, and are they the only people being tapped.  Or is there so-called "data-mining" going on where there's just a wide net spread indiscriminately. I'm prepared to take the President at his word.  But I am not prepared to have that go in perpetuity without ever being reviewed by anyone, including the courts.

Gross:  Do you feel confident that this wiretap and email surveillance program is being used solely to try to track terrorists?  Do you fear that it's being used for other reasons as well?

Biden:  I think I'd be foolish, after so many years of being here and, as I said, being here in the '70's when the reason why we voted this law into place -- FISA -- was that we found J. Edgar Hoover and others were using this material for totally unrelated reasons than determining whether or not during the Cold War some foreign government or agent was plotting against us.  And so I think it would be foolish of us to also make the assumption today that that's the only thing it's being used for.  And even if it is being used for that purpose alone -- now -- what about the next president?  and the next president? It requires that there be some point at which this activity is reviewed so somebody other than an administration official assuring us that, no, this is okay, understands what it being reviewed.

Gross:  So what action do you want to see taken?

Biden:  I'd like to see us do what we did back in the '70's.  The Intelligence Committee -- that is the committee with access to secret information and is able to conduct hearings in secret and from which no information has leaked -- I'd like to see them go and take a hard look at what is going on now.  Have the Administration come and lay out what they're doing and who they're doing it to and why they're doing it and why they need it.  And then go ahead and amend the law, if it needs amending, to give the Administration the power to do what we all want done.  Obviously, we want to be able to eavesdrop on suspected and/or known Al Qaeda terrorists and anyone with whom they're communicating. There isn't a single member of Congress I know of that isn't prepared to grant the president and any president the authority to do that.  So I'd like to have the Intelligence Committee look at in secret what's doing on and then determine what is needed in order to make it crystal clear that this is fully within the bounds and propriety of the law.

Gross:  CIA Director Porter Goss has said that the leak of this secret NSA surveillance program -- he said about it that the damage has been very severe to the capabilities to carry out our mission.  Are you concerned that the questions you're asking might be damaging to our security?  Do you think that the leak about this has genuinely damaged our ability to fight Al Qaeda?

Biden:  Well, without them telling us the alleged damage, it's hard to believe how serious the damage has been.  The idea that this organization which, the President points out, is very sophisticated in terms of its own means by which it uses electronic media, etc -- the idea that they are unaware that we and other countries are unable to intercept communications in the airways is, I find, kind of silly!  I mean, they're clearly aware of that!  Secondly, this leak is as likely to come from the Administration -- more likely to come from the Administration -- than anywhere else.  Matter of fact, the idea that the several members of Congress who are told of the existence of this without any real detail have leaked this is highly... is much less likely.  And the news accounts that you and others have reported where senior officials in the Justice Department, senior officials at NSA, senior officials in the White House, senior officials of the Defense Department who had the responsibility of putting this program together, either resigned because they thought it was unconstitutional and inappropriate or made their views known to their superiors.  So I would think the problem rests more with Porter Goss's shop, if there is a problem, that it does with the Congress!

Gross:  So what do you think the outcome of these hearings will be?

Biden:  It's hard to tell, Terry.  I think it would be irresponsible for the United Stated Senate Intelligence Committee (of which I'm not a member) not to hold closed, secret hearings on what is actually being done.  The first question I asked the Attorney General on Monday was the following:  How will we know when we've won the war?  And he seemed startled.  And he basically said that, well, that'll take a long time.  We don't know.  And then I said, now does that mean you're asserting the President has this plenary authority under the Constitution to be able, in perpetuity, to wiretap and/or open emails of anyone, someone, an officer at NSA says is a suspect?  Is that what you mean?  And he said, Well, but Congress can proscribe that.  And I said, But you just finished telling us for the previous hour that even if the Congress attempted to proscribe your use of eavesdropping it would not be constitutional because you argue the Foreign Intelligence Act is in fact unconstitutional if in effect it attempts to limit the President's plenary power in time of war.  And you just got finished telling me, Mr. Attorney General, that a time of war could go on for decades.  So this is a pretty open-ended thing.  The way I think of it, Terry, is this:  I can't imagine our founders having concluded the president has so much authority that he could go for literally decades, engaging in activity that may or may not violate the civil liberties and constitutional rights of innocent Americans, without anyone at any time ever being able to go back and review whether or not it is appropriate.

Gross:  Senator Biden, you not only serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, you're on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.  I want to ask you about Iran.  The UN Atomic Energy agency voted on Saturday to report Iran to the Security Council, and after the vote Iran announced it would immediately end its voluntary nuclear cooperation with the agency and would begin full-scale production of enriched uranium which could be used for nuclear weapons.  Iran was named by President Bush as part of his "axis of evil" before we invaded Iraq.  Do you think the Bush administration is considering a military option in Iran.  Do you think the Bush administration would eventually try to persuade the Security Council to seek some kind of military approach or that it might be considering a unilateral military approach like it did with Iraq?

Biden:  I don't think there's anything -- to use the colloquial phrase -- that the Administration has "taken off the table" in terms of potential options to move against Iran if they viewed it as necessary.  But the fact of the matter is, there are not many options.  Unlike the program that existed in Iraq as opposed to Iran -- years ago when the Israelis very famously took out the Iraqi nuclear reactor -- all the experts will tell you there is no single military action from the air or through sabotage that could "end their nuclear program."  And so the options are more limited.  I would make two other points.  The Administration has, I think, of late -- in the last year -- adopted the correct policy with regard to Iran.  That is to attempt to further isolate Iran by cooperating with and getting the consensus of the European community, Russia, China and others to say to Iran, If you continue to act in a generic sense this anti-social behavior internationally, there will be consequences for you.  Notwithstanding the fact that the president of Iran has been somewhat bellicose, the very day they said they're going to renew their effort to produce material and come out from underneath the IAEA safeguards, he also said that the possibility of Russia being a vehicle for dealing with the enriched uranium that comes as a consequence of this civilian nuclear power plant, all of it being shipped back out to Russia was still on the table.  So I don't think we know, nor do they know, exactly where their end position is.  I think the Administration is going at it the right way now, and I think that we won't know until the international community finally decides -- if it does -- to sanction them, what the result is likely to be.

Gross:  The President has made creating democracies in the Middle East a priority.   But it seems that voters in that part of the world don't have the same agenda as the US [Biden laughs].  Iraq's constitution says that laws have to be compatible with Islamic law.  Iranians elected a president who thinks Israel should be wiped off the face of the map and its the president was also defying the international community with a nuclear program.  The Palestinians elected Hamas which is on America's list of terrorist groups.  Do you think that the push for democracy is kind of backfiring on the US?

Biden:  Well, look... (choose my words here!)... um... You may recall about four years ago this month that President Bush made his famous "axis of evil" comments in speeches.  He talked about the need to isolate these countries.  That was the policy adopted by the Administration.  In that four-year period you have Korea acquiring four times as much nuclear capability as they had before he made the speech;  you have Iran on the verge of becoming a nuclear power in contravention to its pledges and what the international community wants; and you have a constitution, like you just cited, in Iraq, where you have a Shia-dominated, religious-leaning, Iranian-allied government that's emerged.  And then on top of that you have in Lebanon -- you have Hezbollah having won elections, and you have in Egypt one election which took place of late having the Muslim Brotherhood gaining a foothold.  I think it all reveals a) that the Administration doesn't have much of a policy, and b) democracy is more than rhetorical assertions and more likely to take time to be put in place than imposed.  And I'm not sure the ADministration has fully grasped that reality at this point.  The end result has been --  as the result of a failed foreign policy in my view -- a much more dangerous Middle East and a much less stable international environment.

Gross:  You were an observer of the Palestinian election and you've said you think unless Hamas recognizes Israel, we should not recognize them.  But how do you push for democracy and then say, oh, but we don't like the decision you made!  So now we're not going to recognize you!

Biden:  I was, as you may or may not know -- you implied by your first question -- I have never agreed with the President's view on what he calls "how you acquire democracy in the Middle East."  Democracy comes about as a constitution, a consequence of long-term investment and institution-building.  Institution-building and support through non-governmental agencies -- a free press, an open economy, transparent financing, etc.  And I think in the Palestinian area I also was an observer in last year's election where they elected a president.  And immediately after coming back in January of last year, I contacted the Administration and laid out in some detail what I thought we had to do to equip President Abbas with some credibility to be able to compete in the elections which were to take place, and which they now have in the following January -- this January -- and indicated that we had to give direct help and assistance to them for building schools, hospitals, college tuitions, etc., all of which were being provided by Hamas on the street!  And this administration coupled with the rightwing Republicans -- not all Republicans -- the rightwing Republicans in the House of Representatives did not allow us to have any direct aid to Mr. Abbas and Mr. Fayad and the duly elected personnel of the administration of the Palestinians.  And you see the results.  Senator Lugar, conservative Republican from Indiana, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I sent a letter to the President last March, saying in effect, Mr. President, unless we do some more democracy-building in the Palestinian areas, Hamas may very well win this election!  The bottom line is the Administration thinks that an election produces a democracy.  Elections are necessary for a democracy to exist, but they do not result in a democracy.  You need compromise, you need political institutions that foster that ability to compromise.  They do not exist in the area of the world the President is trying to democratize.

Gross:  Let me move on to Iraq.  John Negroponte, the new National Intelligenge Director, said last week the Al Qaeda's reach and appeal has been expanded through its merger with Al Zarkawi's operations in Iraq.  How do you interpret that?

Biden: Exactly like the Ambassador said.  It's true.  It has been expanded.  You may recall that prior to us going to war in Iraq the President was saying this was a hotbed for Al Qaeda, etc.  And there were many of us saying that was simply not true.  But the way in which we've conducted this effort in Iraq has been so mishandled that it has resulted in it becoming a haven for terror.

Gross:  Do you regret that you voted to authorize the President to use force in Iraq?

Biden:  I regret... If I'd known that this administration would be so incompetent -- and I used that word advisedly -- in the way it went into Iraq and what it did since in Iraq -- shortchanging our military in everything from body armor to the number of forces needed, miscalculating so drastically in terms of the horses that they were backing in Iraq -- I would never have given this president that authority.

Gross:  You told the Council on Foreign Relations in November, in terms of the question whether the invasion was based on bad information, you said,"We all operated on bad information but the only one who took the information that was most questionable and asserted it as fact was the Administration".  Do you feel misled by the Bush administration?

Biden:  Yes.

Gross:  In what way?

Biden:  In multiple ways.  First of all, we did not know -- the public nor did we in the Congress know -- how much disagreement there was within the Administration and within the intelligence forces in the Administration on what the state of play was and the danger presented by Saddam Hussein was.  In that sense we were misled.  Secondly, we were misled in a broader sense, and this is my greatest concern.  We assumed that the broad assertions made by the Administration that they would seek international help, that they would give the military all that was needed, that they would in fact pursue democracy and democratization in Iraq in a way that made sense.  Most of it turned out not to be correct.  Their assumptions were just simply -- simply wrong.  We went with too few forces.  When we realized we needed more forces our commanders were not given more forces.  The result was a sense of chaos that existed.  We also found out that there was not nearly enough... there was no possibility of oil paying for the cost of this war.  We were told that we would be greeted with open arms.  We were not.  Though I must admit I never believed we would be.  So there were a lot of misleading assertions made by the Administration.  Maybe they believed them.  At a minimum they were dead wrong.  At a maximum they were misleading.

Gross:  You presided over two very controversial Supreme Court hearings when you were head of the Judiciary Committee.  I'm thinking of the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991 and the Robert Bork hearings in 1987.  The rejection of Bork led to the verb "to bork."  This had an enormous impact, I think, on the future of the confirmation process and perhaps on how justices are chosen as well.  I wonder what impact you think the Bork hearings had on the future of the confirmation process?

Biden:  Well, it had a significant impact.  First of all,  the Bork nomination was the first time in about sixty years we acknowledged that the American public has the right to know what the constitutional methodology or philosophy of a justice is.  They have a right to know it.  I pointed out in that hearing and prior to that that up to this time one in every four justices nominated to the Supreme Court have been rejected by the United States Senate since 1789.  The first one being rejected by a number of signatories to the Constitution who were in the Senate at the time.  Justice Rutledge. But what happened from that point on, particularly in the past ten years, has been that it's become a bit of a stylized dance where, whether it's a moderate liberal or conservative nominee, they come before the Senate Judiciary Committee very very practiced and practiced in basically refusing to answer any questions directly on the grounds that it might somehow jeopardize their independence on the bench.  As a consequence of that, there is very little known about their judicial philosophy.  In complicated issues, they're able to make it sound like they're giving reasonable answers.  When in fact the answers being given may give significant insight to a justice being put on the Court who might very well change the direction of the nation without the public being aware of it prior to that occurring.

Gross:  You've actually said you'd like to end the whole Judiciary confirmation process, bypass the Judiciary Committee part. 

Biden:  Yes. Well, you know up until 1953, with notable exceptions, the nominees never came before the Judiciary Committee.  The Committee would hold a hearing, they'd bring in outside witnesses, they'd look at the spoken and written record of the nominee, they'd make a recommendation to the US Senate on that nominee, the Senate would debate the nominee based on his or her public record, and then they would vote.  What that does is that would put an incredible premium on the nominees outside the system, that is, not being before the Judiciary Committee, to answer questions to the press and others as to what they really believe about issues.  It would take away this sort of veil that exists now where it appears as though questions are being answered when in fact there is no direct answer.  The basic premise is does the public have a right to know what a member of the third branch of government, equally as powerful as the other two, is likely to do about matters of life and death that affect them, knowing that person is going to be there much longer than any president or any senator.  That's the fundamental question.  What is the public's right to know.And these hearings basically say, we're not really entitled to know much of anything.

Gross:  You think they're basically not even serving a function anymore.

Biden:  I do think that.

Gross:  When you entered the Senate in 1973, you were then the youngest member of the Senate.  You had just turned thirty, and that's the minimum age for a Senator.  So there couldn't have been anybody much younger than you!  This year the Congressional Quarterly reported that 2005 was one of the most partisan years since it began its record keeping, with people from each party voting more often along party lines.  How do you feel you've seen partisanship in the Senate change in the years you've been in the Senate?

Biden:  It's changed drastically, Terry.  When I got elected I was 29 years old, had to officially wait three weeks to be constitutionally eligible after my election and I came to a Senate that had... that was very very divided on matters of race.  I joined a Democratic caucus that contained at least a dozen people who I had strong disagreement with, from James Eastland, John Stennis, etc., on race.  But yet it wasn't personalized in those days. The partisanship was such that we spent time questioning each other's judgment but not their motive  Around 1994, things really began to change. What happened was, if you disagreed with one of your colleagues, your motive was questioned.  You were not moral, or you weren't a "decent person," or... it was not, Well, I understand your position and I disagree with it.  It was "you must be immoral."  And that personalized it in a much much deeper way.  And then political campaigns began to reflect that kind of attitude.  Views began to harden and there was a lot of division.

Gross:  What do you see as the starting point of all that?

Biden: Well, it was gradual.  But if I had to pick one moment, it was 1994 when so many members of the House of Representatives got elected to the Senate... the Gingrich Revolution.  Where it was burn the House down to take back the House.   And in fairness it was in reaction to dominance of the Democratic Party of so many years controllling both houses and the frustration many Republicans in the House felt about, basically, being muzzled for so many years.  And they came to the US Senate with an attitude that was very very different from traditional Senate attitudes.  The Senate is a different place from the House, not in terms of the men and women who make it up but in terms of the rules and the design of the institution.  I would mark the beginning of the real change occurring in 1994 in the US Senate.

Gross:  So what was different about how the new Senators who came from the House behaved?

Biden:  Everything was viewed in personal terms; everything was viewed in terms of an open war.  For example, it used to be, in the Senate -- I've been in the minority and the majority, both, before that time.  When you've lost and you're in the minority, you've got one third of the staff and the majority has two thirds.  When it flipped back the other way, it didn't matter.  It was just the way it was and you never made it personal.  In 1994 when they took over the Senate, it became very very personal.  It's gotten to the point now that, for example, when you have a conference... I know you know this, but it's arcane... the Senate passes a bill on an issue, the House passes the same bill. There are some differences.  They go into a conference where an assigned number of Senators and an assigned number of House members of both parties sit down and work out the differences.  Well, it's become standard rule now that the Republicans in the Senate and the Republicans in the House meet and don't even include the Democrats, and they rewrite the legislation.  And that's it.  It's a very different attitude and it's a very different way in which we proceed.  I fear if the Democrats win back the House or Senate, they may mimic that same behavior.  I think it's very damaging to the body politic. 

Gross:  What bill is an example of the process you describe of the Democrats being shut out of the conference process?

Biden:  Every major bill last year.  For example, on the budget act, the reconciliation bill, which is the tax bill.  The bill relating to whether we were going to pass parts of the Defense bill.  It never had occurred in my previous years in the Senate where a House bill passes, a Senate bill passes, they go to conference and they come out with a bill that has a major element that wasn't contained in either of those bills before they went into conference.  Which is totally inappropriate.  It's just simply not a place where you sit down and there's comity, where you say, Okay, we disagree, how are we going to work this out?  It's more like, We've won -- it may be by only one or two votes but this is it, it's going to be our way or the highway.  It doesn't lend itself, in a heterogeneous democracy, to good governance, in my view.

Gross:  A lot of liberals have felt very frustrated with the Democratic Party for being ineffective in opposing the Republicans.  I'll read you an example of what I'm talking about in the Monday, 2/6 edition of the Philadelphia Enquirer, a front page article by Dick Pullman.  He writes: "The Democrats are a mess.  Right now they seem ill-poised to score major gains at Bush's expense for several fundamental reasons.  They can't agree on what to stand for and what issues to fight for.  They seem most adept at fighting each other with grassroots liberals savaging the Washington moderates and vice versa.  Nor do they have a clue about who should lead them."  What do you say to people who are criticizing the Democratic Party for being a mess and ineffectual?

Biden:  Well, I could start off an joke and say, like Will Rogers, that I belong to no organized political party -- I'm a Democrat!"

Gross:  [laughs]

Biden:  But the truth of the matter is, Terry, that it's a reflection of two things.  Number one:  No one with the single exception of Newt Gingrich has ever led a congressional party when the party has been out of power.  No one.  Until they got a nominee.  So they said the same thing about every party out of power with the single exception of Gingrich in '94... Number two:  The person writing the article talked about gaining at Bush's expense.  That's part of the problem.  We have one president, one president of the United States.  If he messes up in foreign policy, it not only makes him look foolish, America is hurt.  Part of the responsibility, I feel, particularly in the foreign policy area, is to try to encourage him where I think he's doing the right thing and not make it about Bush!  It's not about Bush!  It's about America's security interests.  Now the author of that article may not have meant that but that's what it sounds like to me. Thirdly, and most importantly, there's a reason why Democrats are so frustrated.  We have no organ of government we control.  Therefore there's nothing that you and the press cover about what we have to say.  I can make all the speeches in the world I want.  It's not going to get the kind of coverage it would get if in fact we were able to hold three days of serious hearings like I did when I was chairman before the war in Iraq where close to 70% of the American people supported going to war before the hearings began and after the hearings were over it was down below 50%.   But we don't get to put up a bill to "vote" on Iraq.  We're not in a position to get that vote to the floor.  We're not able to hold hearings.  Again, I'm not whining:  elections have consequences. And one of the consequences of losing is you lose a platform.

Gross:  Let me ask you something about your own story.  You were elected.  But right before you were sworn in, you nearly withdrew because your first wife and your infant daughter were killed in a car crash right after you got elected.  You considered withdrawing.  You were talked into staying.  You were actually sworn in at the hospital bedside of one of your sons who as also injured in the crash. How did you make that decision about whether to stay or whether to withdraw?

Biden:  I listened to my dad who used to say -- he's passed away now -- he said, You know, in moments of real crisis, just decide not to decide.  Let things settle a little bit -- until your mind is clear.  I agreed in response to requests by a wonderful, wonderful man, Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana who was the majority leader, to get sworn in and stay for six months and reconsider at the end of six months whether or not to stay.  My greatest concern was that I didn't think I could be the kind of father I wanted to be and the senator I wanted to be.  And that's when I started commuting.  My two sons were very badly injured and hospitalized.  They've fully recovered.  They're grown men now.  But it was never one of those decisions... I think like most people listening, Terry, you don't make long term decisions about your life, you make decisions as they come.  I agreed to stay for six months and here I am thirty-three years later.  If you'd ever asked me when I made that decision did I plan on trying to stay this long, my answer would have been absolutely not.  I didn't intend this. 

Gross:  What are some of the things you were able to do to manage as a single father of two injured sons and as a new senator?

Biden:  Well, I had the incredible gift of having a sister.  We have an expression in my family: if you have to ask, it's too late!  By the time I came home from the hospital with my sons -- and I was not injured -- my sister and my brother-in-law who's a wonderful, close friend and very successful lawyer, they'd given up their home and moved into my home to help me raise my children.  And roughly five years, six years later, when I fell in love again -- lucky as I was -- and got remarried, we came home after being married and they had moved out. My mother, my brother, my father -- they all lived in the area.  And I was close enough to be able to commute every day.  And I still commute after thirty-three years.  I got very lucky.  God was good to me.  I fell in love with an incredible woman whom I've been married to for twenty-eight years.  And so I was very, very lucky. 

Gross:  Were you in the car when it crashed?

Biden: No, Terry.  I was down here -- one of my regrets.  It was a Monday, December 18th.  I was interviewing staff here and a tractor trailer broadsided my wife and my three children.  My wife and my young daughter were in a carseat on one side of the car, and my two sons were on the other side.   They needed the jaws-of-life to get them out, and the volunteer firemen to whom owe sons' lives to were able to free my sons in time for them to survive. 

Gross:  Were you afraid to drive after that? 

Biden:  No, but I was afraid for them to drive. ... I... well... I was... It was not a good time...

Gross:  Senator, you are seriously considering a run for president.  You're testing the waters. You've said if it looks good you're going to run.  Talk a little about how you think partisan politics have changed in the Senate and how things have gotten more personal so that if somebody opposes you there might be a more personal or moralistic attack against you.  Do you think the same thing holds true for campaigning, and if so, are you prepared for more personal attacks against you than you faced, say, in 1988?

Biden:  I don't know if anyone is ever prepared for that.  I expect that will be the modus operandi whoever the Democratic candidate is.  And depending on who the Democratic candidate is, that may be the modus operandi of attacking the Republican nominee.  I deplore it.  But look, this is, as I kid with my family and others, I say, Look, in other countries when you lose, they shoot you!  In this country, they give you a pension!  So as rough as it is, it's not as rough as it is in other places!  It is worth the candle.  There is so much at stake for this country.  There are so many opportunities that are being squandered that I think you have to suck in and say, Okay, there's nothing enjoyable about this but it is worth the opportunity to be able to change the direction of the country.  You go out and you do it.  How you handle it is part of the process.  God only knows how I'll handle it until it's thrown at me, whatever "it" is. 

Gross:  One thing you know you're going to be asked about is a speech that you are alleged to have plagiarized from something a British Labour Party leader, Neil Kinnock, had said.  And that came up in the 1988 run for the presidency. If that comes up again, how are you going to deal with it?

Biden:  I'm sure it will come up again and it should come up again.  I'll deal with it honestly by saying I made a mistake.  I was arrogant in thinking I didn't have to prepare for a debate in which I failed to quote Kinnock on that occasion.  I'd quoted him many other times.  But it was my fault.  I should have quoted him.  The fact that I didn't quote him was my fault.  It was legitimate for the opposition to raise it.  I made a mistake.

Gross:  You're friends with John McCain.

Biden: Yes.

Gross:  What if you decided to run for president.  He decided to run for president.  And you ended up getting your party's nominations and you were running opposite each other.  What would that feel like to you?

Biden: I'm going to say something that's going to sound strange to you.  I think the country would not lose in that circumstance.  I would be dumbfounded if John McCain would ever engage in a personal attack, and he knows I never would with him.  When they were going after John McCain in South Carolina, and when they were going after John McCain for having not been in full control of himself because of his days in the prisoner-of-war camp during the Republican primary, I called John and said, John, where do you want me?  I'll show up anywhere in America -- he was in California -- and I will testify to your integrity and I will testify as to the soundness of everything you do. I think John would have done the same thing for me. Does it mean that each of our parties won't try to do that kind of stuff?  I don't know.  But I cannot believe that this country would not be treated to a campaign with real differences but with very little if any personal attack.  And look.  We cannot lead the world as a red and blue nation. We literally cannot.  That is not hyperbole.  We cannot lead the world as a divided nation.  And whoever is the next president of the United States has to unite this country.  And that has been pointed out by many others.  This division is not, in my view, so deeply substantive. Six years ago, Clinton would have probably won reelection had he been able to run.  He won in those red states, or got significant support in those red states.  As did Bush 1 -- the first time he ran -- in some of the blue states.  This is not a nation divided. It's being forced to be divided by the political parties.

2/13/06: NPR: Investigating the Katrina debacle

Host:  Renee Montaigne

Reporter:  Pam Fessler

Renee Montaigne:  Investigators in the House are expected to fault all levels of government in response to Hurricane Katrina.  NPR has obtained a draft of that report entitled "A Failure of Initiative."  It is scheduled to be released on Wednesday [2/15].  Investigators detail 90 serious flaws in the response ranging from ineffective leadership at the Department of Homeland Security to inadequate state and local plans to evacuate residents to a "fog of war" at the White House that prevented the President from getting timely information.  NPR's Pam Fessler reports:

Pam Fessler:  House investigators described their report as "a litany of mistakes, misjudgments, lapses, and absurdities, all cascading together."  The report says the mistakes and misjudgments were found at every step of the way, starting with the government's failure to prepare for a disaster that was not only predictable but predicted. The draft report cites numerous warnings months, days and even hours before the storm hit that the powerful hurricane would break the levees in New Orleans and that it would lead to widespread flooding and massive casualties.  But despite those warnings, House investigators found that city officials had inadequate plans to evacuate the 100,000 residents they knew would be unable to leave on their own, and that city officials designated the Superdome as a shelter of last resort even though it was located in a flood plain.  On the federal level, the report cites the dysfunctional system whereby the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Homeland Security Department waited to get requests for aid from state and local officials who were already incapacitated by the storm.  Dave Marin, staff director for the House Select Katrina Committee, notes that the draft findings are still not final.  But he confirms that the panel found fault at all levels.

Dave Marin:  I don't think anyone who prepared for and responded to Katrina was fully effective.  Even those departments and agencies which responded pretty well had problems with coordination, had problems with command and control, and had problems with situational awareness. 

Fessler:  The draft report was made available to NPR by a Committee staffer who requested anonymity because the report is not finished.  But it's highly unlikely that the findings which have come out over several months of Committee hearings will change.  For example, the report notes that the White House was unable to confirm for top officials, including the President, that the levees in New Orleans had broken until almost 24 hours after the fact.  This despite numerous reports, the day before, that the levees had, indeed, been breached.  The report also cites the inability of FEMA officials in New Orleans to communicate with their counterparts in Baton Rouge and confusion over who was in charge of the Superdome.  The report is especially critical of Homeland Security secretary, Michael Chertoff, for not taking control of the crisis earlier and for failing to implement certain emergency procedures.  The report says that "Secretary Chertoff executed these reponsibilities late, ineffectively, or not at all." In minority view released yesterday, Democrats who worked on the investigation said Chertoff should be replaced.  Congressman Charlie Melancon is from Louisiana:

Charlie Melancon:  Bring somebody into DHS that understands the complexity of what DHS needs to do and understands the role that FEMA plays. Don't decimate FEMA in order to strengthen other elements of the Department.

Fessler:  FEMA officials complained to the Committee that the agency was severely weakened when it became part of the Homeland Security Department in 2003.   But Russ Knocke, spokesman for Secretary Chertoff, said the criticism is unfair.  He said the Secretary was actively engaged in preparing for and responding to the hurricane.  Knocke said it was a mistake, though, to put former FEMA director, Michael Brown, in charge of coordinating the federal response.  He said Brown was "willfully insubordinate."  In fact, Brown testified in the Senate last week that he thought talking to Chertoff during the crisis would be a waste of his time and that he tried to deal directly with the White House.  Democratic Congresman Melancon said that he thinks an independent commission is still needed to get at the true story.  The House investigation was largely conducted by Republicans.  The finger pointing isn't expected to end soon.  The White House is also conducting a review of the Katrina response.  A Senate committee is doing its own investigation.

2/10/06: NPR: Interview with Paul Pillar: "Intelligence, Policy, and the War in Iraq."

Interviewer:  Robert Siegel of All Things Considered

Robert Siegel:  In the upcoming issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, there's an article called "Intelligence, Policy, and the War in Iraq."    At one point, the author writes this:  "What is most remarkable about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in recent decades." The author of the article would be in a position to know that.  Paul Pillar spent a career in the CIA. From 2000 to 2005 he was national intelligence officer for the Middle East. He's now at Georgetown University.  Welcome to the program, Paul Pillar!

Siegel:  If in 2002 or 2003, say, I had seen the CIA's intelligence about Iraq and the prospect for war in Iraq, what would I have learned?

Paul Pillar:  You would have learned about the challenges that we were going to face once Saddam Hussein was overthrown; about the length and turbulence of the process of trying to turn Iraq into something we could call at least a half-way state of democracy; about the expense involved in trying to put the Iraqi economy on its feet; and about some of the other things with regard to likely consequences (or lack of consequences) of our operations elsewhere in the region. 

Siegel:  You're saying I would have gotten a pretty good picture of what 2004, 2005, 2006 would be like. 

Pillar:  I think in retrospect that's fair to say. 

Siegel:  Now, you write that intelligence agencies should not be advocating policies -- I'm quoting now -- "the Bush administration's use of intelligence on Iraq did not just blur this distinction; it turned the entire model upside down. The administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made"

Pillar: It was pretty clear from well before 2003 when coalition forces entered Iraq that that was the direction in which the Administraiton was headed.  So most of what we've heard about, read about, with regard to intelligence really wasn't playing into a decision yet to be made.  It was part of the effort to build support for the operation.

Siegel:  The commission that investigated intelligence prior to the war in Iraq, chaired by Judge Laurence Silberman and Senator Charles Robb, did not find that intelligence people at CIA had been coerced into changing their analyses.

Pillar:  I think the Silberman-Robb Commission overall, in my judgement, did an excellent job.  They produced a very thorough, carefully drawn report that has many excellent recommendations.  On the issue of policy influence or political influence, though, basically their inquiry was limited to asking analysts whether their arms had been twisted which really can catch only the most blatant and obvious forms of politicization which are very rare.  When they do occur, they almost always fail.  To the extent that policy influence was felt in the Iraq case, it was something far more subtle, taking other forms such as analysts being aware that there was always a strong policy wind blowing in one direction and it's very hard to resist bending to that, at least in subtle ways.  And also, just with regard to where the intelligence community was directing its attention and resources, in particular it directed a lot of things to this whole issue of was there a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda.  That was not something the community was looking at because in its judgment there really was an alliance there.  It was looking at it because this was a major tenet in the case the Administration was making to go to war.

Siegel:  So the intelligence agencies were trying to answer certain questions only because that would built up the rhetoric the Administration was using for going to war. 

Pillar:  The intelligence community hates to respond to questions asked by policy makers.  In this case, the questions, the requirements, were all going pretty much in one direction. 

Siegel:  Part of what you were up against was the intelligence community, having gotten in wrong about the Iraqi nuclear program back in 1991, and as it turned out the agency also got it wrong in the other direction in 2003.  So there was skepticism about the quality of CIA analysis.  Justified skepticism?

Pillar:  Certainly justified skepticism and some of our leaders, such as the Vice President, have expressed that skepticism quite openly.  I think we had a situation here, one in which perhaps there was overcompensation for the 1991 experience.  And a need to challenge in a zero-based sort of way what became a very broad assumption --- almost worldwide, not just among American analysts and commentators -- that there were weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.  The question then becomes, What kind of environment do you have for intelligence analysts to make them more likely or less likely to do that kind of challenging against what is a broad consensus.

2/08/06: Air America: Al Franken: John Dickerson, Plame, McClellan, Rove, Libby, Bush, protecting sources

2/08/06: Air America:  Al Franken:  Franken interviews John Dickerson (excerpts)

Al Franken:  John Dickerson is the senior political correspondent for Slate magazine, former White House correspondent for Time magazine.  In the former role he's gotten into a little controversy here and maybe trouble... He was the White House correspondent for Time magazine, very, very good White House correspondent, asked President Bush the embarrassing question:  What's the biggest mistake you've made since 9/11?  It's only really embarrassing in the sense that the President couldn't answer it. Most people can pick a mistake that they've made and actually turn it into a positive...  And the President, as you remember, paused at times where you could drive a truck through it or an entire convoy of trucks...  So one of the most respected members of the White House press corps.  Now he's moved on to Slate...

John,  we've been talking about the controversy you've been caught up this week -- I don't know how serious you consider it but some people do.  You were, as White House correspondent for Time magazine privy to the fact that Matt Cooper had talked to Karl Rove and that Karl Rove had outed Valerie Plame -- not by name but by identity -- to Matt Cooper.  Tell me if I got this wrong:  That there were subsequent articles you contributed to in one way or another in Time magazine about the controversy of Plame gate.  There were things like quoting Scott McClellan saying the White House had nothing to do with this... where you guys knew what he was saying wasn't true.  And that you allowed it to stand without saying, We know this not to be true.  Which I understand why you would do that, but there are some people who are peeved about this.

John Dickerson:  Yes, there are some people...  I think that's right.  I think if you look at the articles... when they were written it was all very carefully written.  And the reason you can't just come out and say,  They're big liars!, They're big liars!, is because you end up giving up a source.  Now the people who hate Karl Rove and hate the President say, You've gotta give up your source. 

Franken:  Do you really give up the source, or do you just go, They're big liars...., and not say who...

Dickerson:  Well, you can't do that for two reasons.  One, you've got to show your proof.  You can't just they're big liars and we know something you don't but we're not going to say anymore.  And if you do say they're liars, and you're talking about whether you know Karl Rove was involved or not...

Franken:  Wait a minute!  Why can't you say they're big liars and not show the proof because you don't show your proof all the time?

Dickerson:  Well, but you can't say, in that instance if you say we're certain we know when you're talking about Karl Rove.. if you know, you know it's Karl!... There's not a huge universe of people...

Franken:  ...There's a huge universe of people in the White House!  Not a huge universe but a universe...

Dickerson:  When Scott McClellan was saying Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were not involved, you can't say, We know they were but we're not going to tell you how."

Franken:  Wasn't he saying, there was no one in the White House involved.  That's what I thought was quoted.

Dickerson:  Well, I'll have to go back and look at the articles.  In the clips of Time pieces various people have cited on the web, it's been the Rove and Libby parts..

Franken:  Oh...

Dickerson:  I may be wrong, but...

Franken:  You're in an odd position...

Dickerson:  But the point is this: you have a source and you make an agreement with that source not to blow their identity.  You have to keep that agreement.  And the reason you do that, even in a situation where all those people who hate Karl Rove and this White House and want them to be outed, you've got to remember that the same protections that protect the people who came forth about the NSA wiretaps -- and people come forward about things all the time knowing their cover isn't going to get blown.  Sometimes it's in an instance people would like because it uncovers an NSA wiretapping scheme they don't think is appropriate, and sometimes it protects people they hate and would like to see run out on a rail.  You can't pick and choose.

Franken:  Is there any distinction, however, between a whistleblower who is outing something that the government is doing which is possibly unconstitutional, and a whistleblower who's outing a whistleblower.

Dickerson:  Sure, there is.  But the point is that when you make a promise to somebody, you make the promise.  It stands.  You don't say, Well, I'll keep this promise until I decide not to! Or until I decide I'm going to out you!  It's not the way you do it.

Franken:  And Matt Cooper had made that promise, that it was off the record or something.

Dickerson:  Yes.  In my instance, these were not conversations that I had.  So I'm certainly not going to play with the arrangement that other people make and sources they have...

[  ]

Franken:  The president?  Did he out Valerie Plame?

Dickerson:  No, not to me.

Franken:  Okay.  Did anyone else in the White House do it?

Dickerson:  Not to me.  I never talked about...

Franken:  ....Not to you!

Dickerson:  ... Wilson's wife or Valerie Plame. 

Franken:  Anybody else in the White House talking to anybody else in the Time magazine press organization?

Dickerson:  Well, as we know, they talked to... Libby and Rove talked to Matt Cooper.

Franken:  Libby did too.

Dickerson:  Right. This has all now been a part of the Grand Jury...

Franken:  Okay.  I thought Libby talked to other people as well.

Dickerson:  But you asked about the Time organization and...

Franken:  Okay, okay. All right, all right.  You have to live with this!

Dickerson:  [laughs]

Franken:  But you're going to get some tough questions on this show.  You know that, don't you.

Dickerson:  Sure. But you can see how you can make a promise and then you decide to just break the promise.  You can't have a press that works, functions without an anonymous source.  I mean maybe in a perfect world we'd like no anonymous sources ever.  But if one person decides, well I'm going to break this because in this instance it's compelled.  Of course, if it's a murder or some other situation, perhaps you have a situation where you're saving lives by breaking a confidence, that's another matter.  But in order for the system to stay whole, you have to keep your promises.

Franken:  I'm with you.  But I am going to continue to ask you tough questions.  How's the book going?

Dickerson:  [laughs]...It's coming along.  We're getting there.  If only news events wouldn't keep interrupting so frequently. It's coming along...

Franken:  So what news events have kept you away from doing the book you owe your publisher. 

Dickerson:  Well, we had this -- and it's all still on track!  don't think it's late or anything -- we had this Plame business.  The whole reason I wrote about this is that there were some documents that came out in the course of an exchange of documents between Libby and the court and Fitzgerald in which the conversations I had when I was in Africa were talked about in the court documents.

Franken:  That was the Africa trip in which the secret document was floating around.

Dickerson:  Right. Although nobody knew that at the time.  But yes, that's where Powell left with the document that had Plame's identity in it. 

Franken:  And by the way, it's been shown now that Plame was an undercover agent and all these rightwing people -- you know, apologists for the White House -- had been saying, Oh, she wasn't under cover.  But Fitzgerald discovered that she was undercover.

Dickerson:  Right.  That's right.  Although there's still massive debate about it.  And one of the things that Libby's trying to do to knock the case down is challenge that notion.

Franken: But I thought he discovered that within the last five years she had been doing undercover work overseas and the CIA had been trying to hide her identity.

Dickerson:  That's right.  And they'd been actively trying to hide her identity.  Libby's going to try and challenge that in court.

Franken:  But that's it.  That's the definition.

Dickerson:  I know it's the definition, but definitions have definitions that sometimes get unwound in court.  In these most recent filings, January 31st, that looks like it's one of the areas they're pursuing.

Franken:  Is he going to be convicted before he's pardoned?

Dickerson:  Well, let's see.  The trial begins in '07.  Oh, I'm sorry!  I was taking you seriously...

Franken:  No!  I'm actually serious!

Dickerson:  Well. the trial starts in January '07, so I don't know how long that trial takes but it's going to take a while because...

Franken:  So conceivably he could do a few months in prison. 

Dickerson: I don't know.

Franken:  He could appeal and stuff like that, I suppose.

Dickerson:  Right....

2/8/06: NPR: Igniting protests: The Muslim community and the Jyllands Posten cartoons

NPR's Morning Edition, February 8, 2006   Protests against cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad have led to a number of deaths and damage to Danish missions in several countries. The Danish cartoons came to worldwide attention in part because of Ahmed Abu Laban, the religious director of the Muslim Society in Copenhagen. Steve Inskeep talks to Laban.

Intro:  Renee Montaigne

Interviewer:  Steve Inskeep

Renee Montaigne:  This morning we're talking to one person who played a key role in igniting protests around the world, protests that have led to a number of deaths and the trashing of Danish missions in several Muslim capitols.  He's a Muslim activist in Denmark and he called attention to Danish newspaper cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. 

Steve Inskeep:  The Danish cartoons came to world-wide attention in part because of Ahmed Abu Laban.  He is religious director of the Muslim Society in Copenhagen.  When the Danish paper refused to apologize for the cartoons, Abu Laban and other Muslim leaders helped to get the incident attention in the Middle East.  He's on the phone, now, from Copenhagen.  Welcome to the program!

Ahmed Abu Laban:  Thank you and good morning!

Inskeep: Let's talk about what you did.  You and others working with you prepared a document that included these cartoons and then you sent it to people outside Denmark, people in the Middle East.  Who did you contact?

Laban:  We contacted the rector of Al Azar and the mufti of Egypt because Al Azar, since 1940, and with the beginning of Egyptian cinema, they published a fatwah concerning the display of the character of the prophet Mohammed in cinema or whatsoever related to art. 

Inskeep:  So you reached out to religious leaders in Egypt?

Laban:  Yes.  They are the religious leaders in Egypt and for the Sunni Muslims as well. 

Inskeep:  And did you speak to people in other countries?

Laban:  The second delegation have been sent to Lebanon and our idea was very clear -- that, in Lebanon, whatever the precise situation at the moment, there has been a recipe of coexistence of Muslims, Christians, and the subsets available, and working very hard to keep this kind of coexistence.

Inskeep:  But why appeal to people in Egypt and Lebanon?

Laban:  Egypt because we were not interested in media.  We were trying to get some theological and academic assistance to our point.  We like to expand the platform of dialogue among civilizations.  So let's seek help from professors, from scholars in the Middle East.  Not government.  We're not asking troops to come and invade Denmark!  That's not the point.

Inskeep:  The Wall Street Journal, among others, have reported the the pamphlet that you distributed in other countries included images that were never published.  You obtained cartoons that were even more offensive than the cartoons that were actually in the newspaper and that this was in your pamphlet that was spread around the Middle East.  Is that true?

Laban:  We sent a delegation -- flesh and blood -- to make the point clear away from any possible misinformation, but in addition to that, to tell people that Denmark is a good country and they are very sweet people and we Muslims have become a fundamental part of the society.  And then we had a dossier, a binder, which documented the event from A to Z up to the moment when the people reached Egypt...

Inskeep: ...And that included cartoons that weren't even published in the newspaper?

Laban:  Yes.  The first section, the twelve cartoons of the newspaper Jyllands Posten, and then another in a newspaper weekly here in Denmark called Weekend News, and the third one was an intimidation letter.  We tried to tell people in the Middle East about the mood of atheism and how desparate we are to get their clarification and their religious and academic support.

Inskeep:  Intimidation letters?  You're saying that people received these cartoons in the mail?

Laban:  Yes.  Some centers and some figures.  We do not display them here.  We do not like to put oil on fire.  We just put them on the dossier and give it to concerned people. 

Inskeep:  Mr. Abu Laban, you mentioned pouring oil on fire.  These cartoons were offensive to Muslims in part because they depicted the prophet Mohammed as violent.  Do you think it is appropriate that people have protested those cartoons by burning embassies and killing people?

Laban:  We resist and we denounce any act of violence.  In Islam and according to the genuine Sharia interpretation.  It's only the cartoonist, the editor-in-chief and the newspaper.  They are our group with whom we should initiate dialogue.  So nobody should be inflicted by any harm whatsoever.  To do damage to the properties and to set fire to the embassies is counter-productive to our issue.

Inskeep:  Do you regret, then, that this has gone so far? 

Laban:  In the same way that Mr. Ford will regret that he produced a nice car and a teenager has used it in the wrong way to kill himself or to kill somebody else.  We do not blame Ford because they produce nice cars which produce people who misuse them!

Inskeep:  So, you are not to blame, you say...

Laban: No!  No!  No!

2/3/06: NPR: Lewis "Scooter" Libby's defense: "A high stakes chess game..."

Morning Edition, February 3, 2006:   Lawyers for former White House aide Lewis Libby go to court Friday. The former top aide to vice president Dick Cheney is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in the leaking of a CIA agent's identity. Libby's defense team says he needs access to highly sensitive documents to defend himself.

Reporter: Libby Lewis (really!)

Intro:  Lawyers for former White House aide,  Lewis "Scooter" Libby will be in court here in Washington today.  The former top aide to Vice President Cheney is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in the leaking of a CIA agent's identity.   Libby's lawyers argue that he needs access to highly sensitive documents from the White House and the CIA to defend himself.  NPR's Libby Lewis reports:

Libby Lewis: If the jury ever hears his case, Libby's argument to the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice is fairly simple.  If Libby wasn't telling the truth to investigators and to the grand jury about his conversations with reporters about CIA agent Valerie Plame, it wasn't because he was trying to deceive.  He was confused.  Or it was a memory glitch.  Former prosecutor Randall Eliason explains the defense argument:

Randall Eliason: All these important national security matters, matters of life and death he's dealing with every day -- you know, he doesn't have time to remember little details about a single conversation with a single reporter that happened some time ago. 

Lewis:  Eliason said it's similar to a favorite defense in white collar cases -- in WorldCom, HealthSouth, and now Enron. 

Eliason:  Yeah. They have what they call the (inaudible) CEO defense. 

Lewis:  Of course Libby wasn't in any Vice President's office.  He was in the Vice President's office.  And his lawyers want the judge to order the government to turn over many documents, many of them classified.  They want them partly to show how busy he was when he had those conversations about Plame.  Libby's lawyers wrote to the judge that those conversations occurred in the midst of an unending torrent of meetings, briefings, and discussions of far more urgent and sensitive issues, including, for example, the detection and prevention of terrorist attacks against the United States. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has told Libby's lawyers much of the information the defense is seeking is not relevant to the case.  But Tom Green says he thinks these are reasonable requests.  He's a white collar defense lawyer in Washington.

Tom Green:  If you look at the defense on its face, the request is basically saying We need to see what was occuping Mr. Libby's time and the defense team would like say that these are the burdens of the job, and these are the responsibilities, and these are the intricacies, and everything that he was having to deal with.

Lewis:  Reasonable or not, New York University Law professor Stephen Gillers says he sees in the defense request the opening moves of a high stakes chess game aimed at heading off a trial. 

Stephen Gillers: The legitimate or tactical reason for seeking it is to try to mount a defense based on the denial of access to that information.  That if you won't give us this information, we cannot adequately defend our client.  His constitution rights have been compromised.  The case has to be thrown out.

Lewis:  Will it work? It's early to be asking.  But Libby's lawyers may not be disappointed.  They drew the same judge who presided in the civil case of fired FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds.  She sued and the government argued the case hinged on classified material that, if exposed, could harm national security.  The judge threw out the case. 

2/3/06: NPR: Confirmation hearings, Paul McNulty, Deputy Attorney General replacing James Comey at DOJ

NPR: Morning Edition, February 3, 2006:  Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday questioned Paul McNulty, who is nominated for the no. 2 position at the Justice Department. McNulty previously served as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, where his office handled several of the major terrorism prosecutions of the last five years.

Intro:  The man nominated for the second most powerful position at the Justice Department sat before members of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.  Paul McNulty is in line to be Deputy Attorney General.  His confirmation hearing covered many of the hot legal issues of the day -- terrorism, domestic spying, and executive authority.  NPR's Ari Shapiro reports:

Ari Shapiro:  Many of the audience seats were empty and fewer than half of the Senators on the Committee attended the hearing.  Democratic Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, said "Don't be fooled...."

Senator Durbin:  If people on the Hill, including members of this committee, understood the importance of the position that you seek, this room would be filled. It should be.

Shapiro:  The Deputy Attorney General has hand in everything the Justice Department does.  Terrorism, torture policy, domestic surveillance, drug enforcement and more.  The last Deputy, James Comey, reportedly clashed with White House lawyers over how much power the President should have.  Durbin asked Paul McNulty what he would do if he experienced the same pressure in the job.

Durbin:  Whether you are prepared to resign the position if you found it to conflict with what you consider to be ethical and constitutional conduct.

Shapiro:  McNulty said he will never compromise his integrity for a job. 

Paul McNulty:  As a result of more than two decades in this town, I have the confidence I have the ability to assert myself.  But if that situation were to arise as you framed it, then I'd be prepared -- certainly -- to walk away from a job if it came to a question of integrity vs. employment. 

Shapiro:  The Justice Department policy that's receiving the most scrutiny right now is domestic spying.  On Monday the Judiciary Committee will conduct hearings into that issue.  Yesterday, ranking Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, asked what McNulty thinks of the Attorney General's rationale for the program.  McNulty said he was never briefed on it but that he's satisfied with the public explanation.

McNulty:  I read the paper carefully and I have to say that I found the legal arguments that were being presented there to be credible and compelling arguments.

Senator Leahy:  Do you find anything you disagree with?

McNulty:  [pause]  I don't recall right now, Senator, anything that I would cite as an area of disagreement.

Shapiro:  Several Committee members asked McNulty about reports that the Justice Department has become more politicized than it ever was before.  New York Senator Charles Shumer gave examples of tobacco cases and civil rights decisions where politically appointed leaders reportedly overruled the unanimous recommendations of career attorneys.

Senator Shumer:  I don't think you would deny that at least out there in the buzz there's a view that this Justice Department in certain areas -- particularly civil rights -- has behaved more politically.

Shapiro:  McNulty said he is aware of the buzz. He said if confirmed he'll hold everyone accountable for their actions to make sure politics does not appear to dictate the Department's decisions. 

McNulty:  The concern you express is something I will take seriously.  I will look at the Civil Rights Division and make sure that it's functioning in a way that has everyone's confidence. 

Shapiro:  McNulty's last job was as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.  His office handled several of the major terrorism prosecutions of the last five years.  Senators praised the way he handled those cases but they had concerns about another set of cases in which civilians accused of abusing prisoners in Iraq and elswhere were referred to McNulty's district.  Eastern Virginia received 19 cases in all and none has led to an indictment.  Committee Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania asked for a status report. McNulty said:

McNulty:  There are a number of obstacles that we face in trying to come to the point of bringing criminal charges against individuals who have in any way been associated with an allegation of some form of abuse. 

Shapiro:  Those obstacles include access to witnesses, victims, and questions about jurisdiction.  But McNulty said the investigations are still in progress and indictments may be forthcoming.  Most of the Committee's Republicans did not attend the hearing.  They're all expected to support the President's nominee.  Based on the questions McNulty received, many of the Democrats seem likely to vote for him as well.