Gorelick Connections?

Jack Cashill writes at WND, Apr. 16:

As a last question to former FBI head Louis Freeh, 9-11 Commissioner John Lehman asked whether Freeh was familiar with the information Jayna Davis has gathered for her new book, "The Third Terrorist." Davis, a former Oklahoma City newswoman, makes a powerful case that Terry Nichols had conspired with convicted World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef in the Philippines and that Timothy McVeigh had received direct aid in the construction and delivery of the bomb from, among others, likely Iraqi agent, Hussain Al-Hussaini, the alleged John Doe #2.

This was an excellent question. Lehman, however, addressed it to the wrong person. He should have turned to his fellow commissioner, Jamie Gorelick, the deputy attorney general under Bill Clinton from 1994 to 1997. The Landmark Legal Foundation has now formally requested that Gorelick step down because she is "hopelessly conflicted." But truth would be served if instead of stepping down Gorelick were forced to open up.

Evidence strongly suggests it was Gorelick – not the ineffectual Freeh – who not only misdirected the FBI's investigation into Oklahoma City, but also the FBI investigation into TWA Flight 800. The parallels between the two cases are shocking. And in each case, the Clinton administration constrained the FBI for the same reason: to advance the re-election chances of its standard bearer....

Moreover, Andrew McCarthy writes at NRO, Apr. 15 (sorry I missed this last week):

.... Here, sports fans, is Conflicts 101: You rob a bank; as you are fleeing, there's a woman at the door who sees you, but you point your gun at her, she ducks to the floor, and you skip around her and make your escape. You are arrested and brought to trial. When you get to the courtroom and glimpse up at the bench, who do you see wearing a black robe? Why, it's the woman who witnessed the bank robbery. No way, you say — and you'd be right — the court will find you another judge because this one is an actor in the facts that are the subject matter of the case.

It doesn't matter that the judge happens to be the hardest working, best, most accomplished jurist in the land. It doesn't matter that she is so apolitical no one knows whether she even votes, let alone for whom. Most of all, it doesn't matter that she may not have done anything wrong or anything to be ashamed of. Her conflict does not lie in her work ethic, her political views, or what we might think of her conduct. It is strictly a matter of perception. We have reason to think that she will render judgment based on what she saw in the bank that day rather than what gets presented in the courtroom; we have reason to think she may rule against you not on the merits of your legal arguments but because you pointed a gun at her. Of course, she may not actually do any of those inappropriate things; she may be the very epitome of rectitude. But even if she is, we will always wonder. And if we are left to wonder, the court's rulings lack integrity and legitimacy. If you get convicted, we'll think you might have been railroaded; if acquitted, we'll think you may have intimidated the judge. But one way or the other, we will never be confident that we know what happened in the bank that day.

The situation, of course, is worse if we slightly tweak the scenario so that our judge is no longer just a mere witness who had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Let's now say that, as you were trying to flee the bank, the police had a good opportunity to catch you. But the woman/judge in the bank prevented them from doing so by grabbing an officer — not out of an intention to help you but because she was understandably frightened. You now are able to get out of the bank, and you kill a pedestrian as you speed away in a waiting car.

Now our judge's conflict is even more profound. She is not merely an actor in the facts; she has actually done something, however innocently, that may have contributed to the damage. She now has a powerful motive to skew the fact-finding. We have to worry that she would use her position as judge to steer the trial away from any inquiry into how her actions may have led to the pedestrian's death. The trial is now likely to veer into overblown recriminations about less salient matters, like whether the police were aggressive enough or whether the pedestrian was crossing the street against the traffic light when he was struck. Worse, the perversion of the fact-finding is so patent, and it draws so much outraged attention to the flawed process, that we begin to lose sight of the fact that the real culprit here is you, the bank robber/murderer, not the police, the pedestrian, or our unfortunate panicky judge....

See my An Accomplice Got Onto the Jury.

And, speaking of Oklahoma City, lookee what turned up yesterday:

A Secret Service document written shortly after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing described security video footage of the attack and witness testimony that suggested Timothy McVeigh may have had accomplices at the scene.

"Security video tapes from the area show the truck detonation 3 minutes and 6 seconds after the suspects exited the truck," the Secret Service reported six days after the attack on a log of agents' activities and evidence in the Oklahoma investigation.

The government has insisted McVeigh drove the truck himself and that it never had any video of the bombing or the scene of the Alfred P. Murrah building in the minutes before the April 19, 1995, explosion.

Several investigators and prosecutors who worked the case told The Associated Press they had never seen video footage like that described in the Secret Service log.

The document, if accurate, is either significant evidence kept secret for nine years or a misconstrued recounting of investigative leads that were often passed by word of mouth during the hectic early days of the case, they said.

"I did not see it," said Danny Defenbaugh, the retired FBI agent who ran the Oklahoma City probe. "If it shows what it says, then it would be significant." ....

See The Middle Eastern Connection to 1990s Terrorism in America.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 04/20/04 06:00:12 PM
Categorized as Political.

"Anger" Justifies Claim of "Atrocities"?

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCLXIV

Must... control... anger....

An article at NYT yesterday.

Senator John Kerry on Sunday distanced himself from contentious statements he made three decades ago after returning from the Vietnam War, saying his long-ago use of the word "atrocities" to describe his and others' actions was inappropriate and "a little bit excessive."

"If you wanted to ask me, 'Have you ever made mistakes in your life?' sure," Mr. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said in an hourlong interview on the NBC program "Meet the Press." "I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger."

The near-apology came after the host, Tim Russert, played videotape of Mr. Kerry, in 1971, acknowledging that he had participated in shooting in free-fire zones, burning villages and search-and-destroy missions. All those actions were "contrary to the laws of warfare" and the Geneva Conventions, he said then. Republicans have seized on those comments, and accusations about war crimes the young Mr. Kerry made in testimony before a Senate committee, to try to undercut his war credentials.

"The words were honest," Mr. Kerry said Sunday, "but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top."

In an appearance his aides hoped would counterbalance President Bush's televised news conference last week, Mr. Kerry said he completely supported Mr. Bush's new position that Israel should be able to keep part of the land seized in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. He also backed Israel's assassination this weekend of a Hamas leader.

"I believe Israel has every right in the world to respond to any act of terror against it," he said. Some members of Mr. Kerry's campaign are concerned that Mr. Bush's statements about West Bank settlements could draw Jewish Democrats.

Mr. Kerry's position on Israel was a rare point of agreement with the president, whose handling of Iraq Mr. Kerry called "stunningly ineffective."

"It may well be that we need a new president," he said, "a breath of fresh air, to re-establish credibility with the rest of the world."

The interview capped a week in which Mr. Kerry hammered Mr. Bush daily on Iraq, hoping to contrast his internationalist approach and policy experience with what his advisers see as Mr. Bush's simplistic "stay the course" presentation. He spent all of Saturday huddled with aides in preparation for the show.

It was Mr. Kerry's 19th appearance on "Meet the Press," his fourth since December 2002. He appeared well prepared for the forum and avoided verbal stumbles, correctly pronouncing the name of the United Nations' envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, which he had mangled three times in recent days. Hours later, at the University of Miami, Mr. Kerry goofed again, referring to the envoy as "Brandini."

The wide-ranging interview focused largely on foreign policy, but also touched on job creation, budget balancing, his wife's tax returns and even the gas mileage standards for new cars. Pressed on his past comments about raising the retirement age and instituting a means test for Social Security, Mr. Kerry turned the tables on Mr. Russert, saying, "I wish I had the power to press this button and put up on the screen what you said" in 1997 when Medicare seemed on the brink of bankruptcy.

Marc Racicot, chairman of Mr. Bush's re-election campaign, criticized Mr. Kerry's appearance as "little more than contradiction, a great deal of confusion, inaccurate attacks and a fundamental misunderstanding of the threat that we face with terror."

In a conference call with reporters, Mr. Racicot called Mr. Kerry's reasoning on voting to authorize the invasion of Iraq but not the $87 billion appropriation for reconstruction, "remarkably flawed."

The interview did provide new fodder for Republican attacks on Mr. Kerry for avoiding direct questions. Three times, on questions about troop deployment, troop financing and whether he would pledge not to run for re-election if he failed to fulfill promises to create 10 million jobs and cut the deficit in half, Mr. Kerry said "it depends" on the circumstances or the situation.

Asked at the beginning of the show for a yes or no answer on whether the war in Iraq was a mistake, Mr. Kerry responded, "I think the way the president went to war was a mistake."

Pushed to reconcile his description of Cuba policy four years ago as counterproductive with his current support for the embargo, he said, "I think in the year 2000, the politics are very different from where they are in 2004."

When Mr. Russert asked whether his wealthy wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, would release her tax returns, which she has refused to do, Mr. Kerry said, "My wife is doing exactly what the law requires."

The most awkward moment came after the Vietnam-era videotape, Mr. Kerry's "Meet the Press" debut, with the candidate watching his younger self use grave and graphic words to describe the Vietnam War.

"Where did all the dark hair go, Tim?" Mr. Kerry tried, wearing an odd grin. "That's a big question for me."

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

MSNBC has posted a transcript (embedded ellipsis in original):

.... MR. RUSSERT: Before we take a break, I want to talk about Vietnam. You are a decorated war hero of Vietnam, prominently used in your advertising. You first appeared on MEET THE PRESS back in 1971, your first appearance. I want to roll what you told the country then and come back and talk about it:

(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):

MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: You committed atrocities.

SEN. KERRY: Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That's a big question for me. You know, I thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad word. I think it's an inappropriate word. I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.

MR. RUSSERT: You used the word "war criminals."

SEN. KERRY: Well, let me just finish. Let me must finish. It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don't like it when I hear it today. I don't like it, but I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the soldiers' blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier — I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them. But the words were honest but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top. And I think that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions. There were policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of warfare, and everybody knows that. I mean, books have chronicled that, so I'm not going to walk away from that. But I wish I had found a way to say it in a less abrasive way.

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited, and in hindsight was your testimony...

SEN. KERRY: Actually, a lot of them have been documented.

MR. RUSSERT: So you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY: A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim. The problem is that's not where the focus should have been. And, you know, when you're angry about something and you're young, you know, you're perfectly capable of not — I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me that I have today, I'd have framed some of that differently. Needless to say, I'm proud that I stood up. I don't want anybody to think twice about it. I'm proud that I took the position that I took to oppose it. I think we saved lives, and I'm proud that I stood up at a time when it was important to stand up, but I'm not going to quibble, you know, 35 years later that I might not have phrased things more artfully at times....

Next time I'm angry, remind me not to accuse others of — or to confess myself to — murder, rape, robbery and/or other kinds of mayhem. On television. Okay? It must be easier to do than one would have thought.

Mr. Kerry turned the tables on Mr. Russert, saying, "I wish I had the power to press this button and put up on the screen what you said" in 1997 when Medicare seemed on the brink of bankruptcy. It doesn't matter what Mr. Russert said, or didn't say, about Medicare, or anything, in 1997. Because he was not a Senator then and he is not running for President now.

I guess Core's Law of New Media is starting to get under the skin of the Democratic Nominee Presumptive. :-)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 04/20/04 05:33:59 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & John Kerry.

Memogate — Not

"I have learned that one shouldn't play hardball with limpwristed teammates."

Manuel Miranda writes a blistering article, Sunday, exclusive to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Pittsburgh has a unique link to the past in the judicial nominations wars. And every Republican in America knows that Pennsylvania holds the key to the future in the coming Republican primary that may decide who the next Senate Judiciary Committee chairman is — or is not.

Before moving to Utah, Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) first practiced law in Pittsburgh. In those days, he was a liberal Democrat. The profitable industry that has grown around obstructing nominees would not be what it is if it were not for Hatch's unique manner, or Arlen Specter's populist votes against Jeff Sessions (now the senator from Alabama) and Robert Bork (as in "borking") in the 1980s.

Those early liberal victories were the playground where today's highly paid judge-killers first shaped their career plans. Hatch's recent role in Memogate, at the sad end of his chairmanship, tells the rest of the story as to how the bullies he calls friends have been emboldened over the years....

See also A Series of Articles You Will Not See at NYT.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 04/20/04 06:54:41 AM
Categorized as Political.