January 13, 2004 by s.z.

Ripped From the Headlines USA TODAY foreign correspondent Jack Kelley was forced to resign last week after he repeatedly misled editors during an internal investigation into stories he wrote, the newspaper's top editors said Monday. When neither the newspaper nor Kelley could verify a story he reported in Belgrade in 1999, Kelley essentially invented a witness to corroborate the account, the editors said in a statement published on the newspaper's Web site. It's a convoluted story, but apparently senior management got an anonymous email alleging Kelley had made up some stuff.  Then a staffer told management about a complaint he had received regarding Kelley's Belgrade story.  That story cited "Yugoslav army documents" which reportedly directly linked then-Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to "ethnic cleansing." Mark Memmott, a fellow reporter, was asked to investigate Kelley.  Memmott asked Kelley who could verify his story of how he came to see the documents.  Kelley provided the name of human rights investigator in Belgrade -- but she couldn't remember ever talking to Kelley.  Kelley then gave Memmott the name and phone number of a translator whom he said was present, but Memmott couldn't find her.  So, Kelly came up with the name of another translator, but she said that she was the only translator there, and "her recollection of the interviews were not consistent with Kelley's story." When neither Kelley nor Memmott could find anyone to confirm the story, Kelley "panicked," he told The Washington Post last week.  He arranged for a woman who had worked for him on other assignments to pose as the translator that had been unable to locate. the newspaper determined and Kelley confirmed to The Post. The woman telephoned Memmott, who said he grew suspicious when she would not give him a way to contact her. In addition, her story seemed a verbatim account of Kelley's two-translator story, even though Kelley and the woman insisted they had not spoken recently, Memmott said. Memmott taped the calls of the translator and kept track of the numbers from which the woman was calling. One was a Texas number that belonged to an different translator — a woman Kelley had hired years before, when on assignment in Russia. Memmott found the Russian translator's name in Kelley's 1995 and 1996 expense reports, he said. Unbeknownst to Kelley, USA TODAY hired a private security firm to talk with the Russian translator and compare her voice with the tape of the woman who had spoken to Memmott and vouched for Kelley's story. The voices matched, the statement says. While the newspaper investigated the ruse, Kelley continued to perpetuate it, the statement says. During one meeting with Memmott and Gallagher, Kelley brought in a photo of the woman he said was his Belgrade translator, the statement says. Since the "Law & Order" franchise did two versions of the Jayson Blair story, I think Kelley's tale is worth at least one.  I see it going something like this: Law and Order: Beltway Spinoff Division It's still dark.  A janitor is exchanging lighthearted banter with a colleague as she cleans an office building.  She opens the door to a men's room stall, and a body falls out.  She cleans around it. commercial An intense young Eskimo detective and his partner, a world-weary white lesbian, show up to investigate the dead body.  They learn that they are in the USA TOMORROW building, and that the victim, Mike Memento, was a reporter there.  They interview a bunch of typical newspaper people, and discover that the only story Memento was pursuing was the case of a high level government official who had purportedly leaked the name of covert CIA employee to another newsman.  The cops figure out that the leaker was the President's right hand man, and turn him over to the FBI -- but since the leaker has an alibi (he spent the night with the reporter who printed the leak), he couldn't be the killer.  The cops are stumped. commerical Their boss, a crusty Native American just one week from retirement, suggests to the detectives that they go back to the paper and find out why the victim's LUDs show he was placing calls to Yugobania.  The rest of the episode is just the news story, except that when the detectives finally learn about the P.I. and go to his office, it's to find him MURDERED!  Oh, and the mysterious Russian woman who pretends to be the Yugobanian translator?  Well, she helped the fabricating reporter out of love.  However, she turns on him when she realizes that he was also sleeping with the National Security Adviser.  And for our ironic twist, we learn that it was the reporter's fabricated story which led an idealistic Yugobanian student to assassinate his country's former leader -- and it was all for nothing! Oh, and in the "Order" part, the fabricating reporter will claim the Atkins diet caused him to kill.  The defense will present expert witnesses and also regular people who testify they would kill for a slice of bread.  The prosecution will be disgusted.  One juror (who is on the diet, but didn't say so in voirdire) will refuse to convict, and so it's a mistrial.  But as the former accused is walking out of court, he will be gunned down by his wife, who was also mad that he was cheating on her with the National Security Adviser.  Then she will kill herself.  We will suspect (but be unable to prove) that SHE really killed the victims in order to frame the reporter.  The ADA will say something earnest.  The DA will make some folksy quip about dames.  The End. 4:57:00 AM

comment [] trackback []

Why Everybody is Wrong About O'Neill and the "60 Minutes" Documents (except me) In today's "Ask AuntieInsta," reader Angie Schultz writes: I do want to know what laws O'Neill broke by giving Suskind "transcripts of private, high-level National Security Council meetings".  Is that more or less of a crime than outing a CIA agent? And Auntie replies: Hmm. It's by a Republican, which makes it bad. But it's anti-Administration, which makes it, er, patriotic! Yeah, that's the ticket. . . Well, that wasn't much of an answer, AuntieInsta.  Reader Angie seems really sincere in her desire to learn more about our nation's laws, and you didn't share any of your legal knowledge with her.  (You do have legal knowledge, right?)  But we at WO'C will pick up your dropped ball. Angie, if the transcripts which Mr.O'Neill made are deemed classified ("concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security"), but they aren't about codes, ciphers, or communications intelligence, and Suskind isn't found to be an agent of a foreign power, then O'Neill probably broke no law.  As Attorney General Ashcroft said in his 2002 report to Congress on leaks: "It must be acknowledged that there is no comprehensive statute that provides criminal penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of classified information irrespective of the type of information or recipient involved." But the Treasury reportedly turned over to O'Neill the documents which he  let Suskind review for the book.  And since it's highly unlikely they would give him classified documents as a parting gift, then those transcripts probably WEREN'T classified.  Just embarassing and damning to the administration. Now, to answer the second part of Angie's question, "Is that more or less of a crime than outing a CIA agent?"  Angie, as everybody in the world (except AuntieInsta)  knows, what a certain Senior Administration Official did when he "outed" Valerie Plame was very probably a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.  John Dean explains the penalties: First, there are those with direct access to the classified information about the "covert agents." who leak it. These insiders - including persons in the CIA - may serve up to ten years in jail for leaking this information. Second, there are those who are authorized to have classified information and learn it, and then leak it. These insiders - including persons in, say, the White House or Defense Department - can be sentenced to up to five years in jail for such leaks. So, you see Angie, "outing" a CIA "covert agent", which might have endangered her foreign sources, is clearly WAY more of a crime, as well as being morally horrific and an affront to God.  I hoped that helps. But wait, AuntieInsta has more! (ANOTHER UPDATE: Hmm. Angie isn't the only one wondering about O'Neill: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury has asked the U.S. inspector general's office to investigate how a possibly classified document appeared on Sunday in a televised interview of ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, a department spokesman said on Monday. "It's based on the (CBS program) '60 Minutes' segment, and I'll be even more clear -- the document as shown on '60 Minutes' that said 'secret,"' Treasury spokesman Rob Nichols told reporters at a weekly briefing. As Henry Hanks emails: "The 'Frog march Karl Rove' crowd ought to be outraged if the allegations are true..." No doubt. Well, since they didn't show a document on "60 Minutes," just the COVER SHEET of a document, and everybody says there wasn't a document present at the taping, then it would appear that allegations AREN'T true.  Sorry about that, Henry Hanks (and Karl Rove). The "60 Minutes" producer said they never saw the actual document.  Suskind says HE never saw the document.  Heck, Suskin says that O'NEILL never even got a copy of the document when he left the Treasury. Here's what he told the  NY Times:  Mr. Suskind, who was given access by Mr. O'Neill to 19,000 documents that were turned over to him by the department after his departure, said the document that was shown on "60 Minutes" was the cover sheet for a February 2001 briefing paper on planning for a post-war Iraq. But he said Mr. O'Neill was not provided with the briefing paper itself. And, as everybody blogging on the right has said, the document that was actually shown on the program was a Dick Cheney energy one which had been released under a Freedom of Information request to Judicial Watch, (and so was unclassified).  And despite what John Hinderaker claims, this doesn't mean "There is only one possible conclusion: Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind are attempting to perpetrate a massive hoax on the American people." Obviously, as the cover memo proves, there were OTHER documents, including a February 2001 one, about planning for post-war Iraq.  Since Suskind couldn't show the classified one on TV (a. because he didn't have it; and b., because it was classified), presumably the "60 Minutes" people used a document which Suskind DID have-- that Cheney one -- to jazz up the story.  Misleading? Perhaps.  But does this discredit O'Neill?  Not really. Here's the transcript of that portion of the progam, as posted by Daniel Drezner: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.... He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration. So, Suskind says there were memos on this topic, ONE of them marked secret -- and that's the one that he only has the cover sheet for.  And there really was a Secret document that went with that cover (as demonstrated by the Treasury's reaction to seeing the cover sheet on TV), and it really was about plans for a post-war Iraq.  And presumably O'Neill read it and knows what it said, and told the gist of it to Suskind.  Suskind didn't have the secret memo, but he "obtained" a copy of the March 2001 "Foreign Suitors" document, so that's the one that was shown on TV.  It's the one which evidentally came from the VP's office -- so, either Suskind made a mistake, or his copy DID come from the Pentagon, even though it wasn't originated there.  While the TV show made it look like this was the document that revealed pre-9/11 plans to invade Iraq, it really wasn't.  But there really were documents making plans for a post-war Iraq.  And so there is actually more than one conclusion reasonable people can reach about whether or not O'Neill and Suskind are attempting to perpetuate a massive hoax.  Just as there is more than one conclusion reasonable people can hold about whether or not the White House twisted intelligence to get it to support a conclusion they'd already reached about Saddam having to go.  I know which conclusions I hold, though. So, believe whatever you want, but make sure you have all the facts before you tell other people there is only one conclusion, John. And Angie, when you have questions, now you know who to turn to. 3:25:33 AM