That may not be a mature sentiment, wanting to see Conyers and Pelosi in a spat. But after reading that Pelosi knee-capped Conyers on his subpoena of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, I have marginal hopes that this will piss off Conyers and escalate things in HJC, rather than bury them as Pelosi seems content to do.

House Democratic leaders have decided to postpone a vote on a criminalcontempt resolution against White House chief of staff Joshua Boltenand former White House counsel Harriet Miers for several weeks, andpossibly longer, according to top lawmakers and aides.

[snip]

But the slowdown, approved by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) andher top lieutenants, is also stirring objections among Democrats.House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) saidhe is uncomfortable with the delay and worries the House will be seenas toothless unless it moves quickly to hold top officials in contemptfor failing to provide documents and testimony in congressional probes.

[snip]

Conyers said it was critical for Congress to enforce its subpoenasagainst executive branch officials, including senior White House aides.

“Otherwise, we just become a [social] club,” Conyers said, adding that he would be reviewing the issue with Pelosi soon.

You see, after a long history of noting the importance of impeaching George Bush, John Conyers quickly adopted the Pelosi party line when he assumed leadership of the House Judiciary Committee this year. Progress on the US Attorney investigation in HJC has been inexorable, perhaps too slow for my taste, but largely palatable to the jellyfishes in charge of Democratic strategy in DC.

John Conyers has the ability to change that, if he has the will and energy to do so. One way to do so immediately–and to ratchet up pressure on Pelosi and to garner a huge amount of press–would be to formally move into an impeachment investigation, something Conyers has the ability to do without the approval of Pelosi.

Via Secrecy News, I see that DCI Michael Hayden is lecturing the press on its obligations in the GWOT.

Theduty of a free press is to report the facts as they are found. By sticking tothat principle, journalists accomplish a great deal in exposing al-Qa’ida andits adherents for what they are.

Justas they report on the terrorists, it’s the job of journalists to report on the howthe war against terrorism is being fought. And when their spotlight is cast onintelligence activities, sound judgment and a thorough understanding of all theequities at play are critically important. Revelations of sources andmethods—and an impulse to drag anything CIA does to the darkest corner of theroom—can make it very difficult for us to do our vital work.

Whenour operations are exposed—legal, authorized operations overseen by Congress—itreduces the space and damages the tools we use to protect Americans. After thepress reported how banking records on the international SWIFT network could bemonitored, I read a claim that this leak—and I quote—“bears no resemblance tosecurity breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearlycompromise the immediate safety of specific individuals.”

Idisagree. In a war that largely depends on our success in collectingintelligence on the enemy, publishing information on our sources and methodscan be just as damaging as revelations of troop or ship movements were in thepast. Now, the compromise to safety can be both immediate and lasting,extending far beyond specific individuals.

Hayden then goes on to cite two examples where leaks to the press compromised operations.

Somesay there is no evidence that leaks of classified information have harmednational security. As CIA Director, I’m telling you there is, and they have. Letme give you just two examples:

• In one case, leaks provided ammunition for agovernment to prosecute and imprison one of our sources, whose family was alsoendangered. The revelations had an immediate, chilling effect on our ability tocollect against a top-priority target.
• In another, a spate of media reports cost us severalpromising counterterrorism and counterproliferation assets. Sources not eveninvolved in the exposed operation lost confidence that their relationship withus could be kept secret, and they stopped reporting.

Now, of all the leaks to the press of late, only two that I can think of could have compromised individual sources and "operations"–and if the latter pertains to counterproliferation, I’d say the possibilities are even fewer. There’s the revelation that Pakistan had captured Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, Al Qaeda’s IT guy. Pakistani officials claimed that the leaked capture had compromised a large operation–which may well have touched on both counterproliferation and counterterrorism.

Until U.S. officials leaked the arrest of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan toreporters, Pakistan had been using him in a sting operation to trackdown al Qaeda operatives around the world, the sources said.

If we can believe the Pakistanis, then this is almost certainly one of the incidents Hayden refers to. But the leak came from Administration leakers trying to justify one of their orange alerts.

And then, of course, there’s the outing of Valerie Wilson. Her work definitely touched on counterproliferation. Her exposure definitely required the CIA to pull back some operatives working under the Brewster Jennings cover. But it may well have led to either of the consequences Hayden cites–the arrest of assets tied to the cover, or the hesitation of others to work with us.

After all, if the US Vice President is willing to out intelligence secrets, what guarantee do others have that Cheney won’t out assets as well?

Mike McConnell or General Petraeus?

Petraeus has become Fox’s latest pundit, while McConnell is claiming the amended FISA is responsible for those German terror arrests last week.

The government’s ability to eavesdrop on terrorism suspects overseasallowed the United States to obtain information that helped lead to thearrests last week of three Islamic militants accused of planning bombattacks in Germany, Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, told senators on Monday.       

Butanother government official said Mr. McConnell might have misspoken.Mr. McConnell said the information had been obtained under a newlyupdated and highly contentious wiretapping law, the ForeignIntelligence Surveillance Act. But the official, who has been briefedon the eavesdropping laws and the information given to the Germans,said that those intercepts were recovered last year under the old law.The official asked for anonymity because the information is classified.

It’d be nice if we actually started holding government officials accountable for the lies they tell during oversight hearings, huh?

When Jim Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he refused to say the warrantless wiretap program was illegal.

SPECTER: Well, you don’t have to.

If the certification by theDepartment of Justice as to legality is required as a matter of law,and that is not done, and the program goes forward, it’s illegal. Howcan you — how can you contest that, Mr. Comey?

COMEY: Thereason I hesitate is I don’t know that the Department of Justice’scertification was required by statute — in fact, it was not, as far asI know — or by regulation, but that it was the practice in thisparticular program, when it was renewed, that the attorney general signoff as to its legality.

There was a signature line for that.And that was the signature line on which was adopted for me, as theacting attorney general, and that I would not sign.

So itwasn’t going forward in violation of any — so far as I know –statutory requirement that I sign off. But it was going forward eventhough I had communicated, "I cannot approve this as to its legality."

Jack Goldsmith doesn’t say so directly, either. But in this excerpt from his book, he makes it very clear that Alberto Gonzales should have no authority to investigate leaks about FISA–and particularly shouldn’t subpoena Goldsmith–since Gonzales had had to be get bailed out of an illegal program in the first place.

MoveOn has a hot new ad in today’s NYT pointing out that Petraeus’ statements differ from all the known metrics out there. And boy has it made Sanctimonious Joe pissed. Not surprisingly, Joe is trying to call in those chits he got for agreeing to caucus with the Democrats in January.

The personal attack on Gen. David Petraeus launched today byMoveon.org is an outrageous and despicable act of slander that everymember of the Congress — Democrat and Republican — has a solemnresponsibility to condemn.

General Petraeus has served hiscountry honorably and selflessly for over thirty-five years. He hasrisked his life in combat and accepted lengthy deployments away fromhis family to defend our nation and its citizens from its enemies. Forthis, he deserves the respect, admiration, and gratitude of everyAmerican — not the disgraceful slander of Moveon.org.

Ithas been widely reported that Moveon.org has worked closely over thepast months with many members of the Democratic Party in coordinatingtheir efforts to derail the strategy that General Petraeus has beenleading in Iraq.

[snip]

As a member of the Senate Democratic caucus, I therefore call on SenateMajority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi todenounce Moveon.org in no uncertain terms for its vile attack on Gen.Petraeus. General Petraeus deserves no less.

Mind you, Joe doesn’t address the central allegation that MoveOn makes–that Petraeus is lying to Congress. Which he’d have to do to prove his own accusations about slander. Rather, Sanctimonious Joe says we’ve got to honor Generals, even if they lie to us.

If I were MoveOn, I’d lodge a legal complaint against Joe for alleging that MoveOn and the Democrats are violating restrictions on 527s and PACs.

BushCo says that–since they haven’t seen Petraeus in a week–they clearly couldn’t have given him a script for today’s hearing.

The White House and its allies on Capitol Hill have pushed back hard atthis critique. Administration officials said they are not directing orreviewing the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker. A senior militaryofficial close to Petraeus said the general’s congressional testimonyhas not been provided to the White House or the Pentagon "and the first time all will hear it will be in the hearing Monday."

White House officials acknowledge that they know the key elements ofthe Petraeus-Crocker assessment and recommendations. President Bushheard Petraeus and Crocker outline their main points in two lengthysessions — one by videoconference on Aug. 31, the other when he metthe two at an air base in Anbar province on Labor Day. Bush and Petraeus have not spoken since then.

"We’re not by any means in the dark," said one senior administration official, who would only speak on background. [my emphasis]

To which I’ll just recall what Pat Lang had to say about the trip to Anbar.

I note that the president’s travel party to AssadAir base in Anbar Province includes; Gates, Rice, Pace, Fallon, Lute,Hadley.  There, he will, of course, see Petraeus and Crocker as well. Anyone else of note? Any AEIers? Sounds like a council of war to me. Nice and isolated, minimal press interference and possibility ofoperational security planning breach.  Well thought out.  This will bea good place to get everyone "on board" and to coordinate tactics forthe Petraeus/Crocker show to come.

So all it means is that BushCo went to Anbar to decide on a plan before they heard all the other reports.

No, not to the seniors enrolled in Medicare, silly! To the private insurance companies. Yet another GAO report has found yet another contracting scam that BushCo is ignoring.

Private insurance companies participating in Medicarehave been allowed to keep tens of millions of dollars that should havegone to consumers, and the Bush administration did not properly auditthe companies or try to recover money paid in error, Congressionalinvestigators say in a new report.

What’s remarkable about this though, is it is at least the third incidence where–when faced with accounting improprieties from a corporation working with the government–the Bush Administration refuses to ask for the money back.

Does it surprise you that the first company to sign an oil deal with Iraqi Kurds is Hunt Oil, a company with very close ties to Bush and our country’s intelligence infrastructure?

Texas’ Hunt Oil Co. and Kurdistan’s regional government saidSaturday they’ve signed a production-sharing contract for petroleumexploration in northern Iraq, the first such deal since the Kurdspassed their own oil and gas law in August.A Hunt subsidiary,Hunt Oil Co. of the Kurdistan Region, will begin geological survey andseismic work by the end of 2007 and hopes to drill an exploration wellin 2008, the parties said in a news release.

Nope. It doesn’t surprise me, either. But I am interested in what it portends for long-term plans in Iraq.

First, some background. The Hunt family that owns Hunt Oil (it’s privately held, so we don’t get to scrutinize financial statements) is one of the big money Texas donors behind the Bush family political empire. Ray Hunt, the current chair of the company, is also on the board of Halliburton and the King Ranch, meaning he probably knows to duck when he goes quail hunting with Dick Cheney. Hunt is also on the board of trustees for Shrub’s new presidential library, which has just announced its plans for a wacky democracy institute that will give cover for more imperialism around the world. Oh, and Hunt is also on PFIAB, which means he gets to review a huge amount of intelligence information and then refuse to reveal its classification and declassification activities–not to mention weigh in on whether or not the President’s illegal intelligence activities are illegal or not.

It’s also worth noting that one of Hunt Oil Company’s planes has been spotted taking off and landing at a CIA training facility.

In short, Hunt Oil Company is as wired in as oil companies get–which is saying something.

Now do you see why I find it interesting that Hunt Oil Company is the first company into Kurdistan’s oil fields?

What I don’t know is how to interpret the deal. Perhaps it means nothing more than that Ray Hunt, having reviewed BushCo’s plans and the real underlying intelligence personally, is sufficiently comfortable that Kurdistan will exist as a viable entity, with the oil laws in Iraq remaining as they are, with sufficient security, to conduct oil exploration over the long term (and this is oil exploration, so we are talking a long term indeed). Or perhaps Hunt has signed this deal as a favor to Bush, to push other, publicly held oil companies (which might–out of concern for shareholder value–hesitate before signing such a deal) to invest in Iraqi oil. The NYT article suggests both may be factors in this deal.

Despite Iraq’s vast oil reserves, major international companies havesat on the sidelines, not only for security reasons but because of theabsence of legislation governing the industry and offering protectionfor investments.

A draft oil law for all of Iraq has been bogged down for months, in part because of disputes over who will control the proceeds.

InAugust, however, the Kurdish self-governing region in northern Iraqenacted its own law governing foreign oil investments. The move angeredthe central government in Baghdad, but the Kurds are determined to pushahead with oil exploration.

Most interestingly, this deal suggests those close to Bush believe the US will retain its ties with Kurdistan, as a distinct entity, for some time. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that recent developments in Iraq reflect a slow, but irreversible, split into three countries. If that happens, Turkey, Iran, and Syria are sure to be mightily involved in attempts to destabilize Kurdistan. But never fear, because Hunt Oil will be there, looking for oil. Among other things, I’m sure.

If I had to guess, I’d suggest this is pretty solid evidence that BushCo has grown comfortable with the idea of Iraq splitting apart.

This Eric Lichtblau article provides a lot of dots that have been, heretofore, missing in our picture of the surveillance they’ve got us under. It’s no surprise the government has been using data mining on not just suspects themselves, but also on their friends and associates–a virtual "Friends and Families" plan of surveillance.

The documents indicate that the Federal Bureau of Investigation usedsecret demands for records to obtain data not only on individuals itsaw as targets but also details on their “community of interest” — thenetwork of people that the target in turn was in contact with.

But given the description, it’s more clear now why the Administration refused all meaningful oversight of the minimization they’re doing on their warrantless wiretapping. You can’t really collect a "community of interest" and at the same time be claiming you’re eliminating all data on those not directly targeted.

Further, the article explains why Alberto Gonzales got all squirmyearly this year when SJC asked him for information on National SecurityLetters. They were still trying to hide these communities of interest,so Gonzales didn’t want to provide much information on the program. Andmeanwhile, they were trying to bury the program.

The government official who spoke on condition of anonymity said theF.B.I. recently stopped asking the telecommunications companies for thecommunity of interest data. The exact time of and reason for thesuspension is unclear, but it appears to have been set off in part bythe questions raised earlier this year by the inspector general’sinitial review into abuses in the use of national security letters.

WTF is the Administration doing, claiming it has briefed members of Congress on the warrantless wiretap program when it hasn’t?

After the domestic surveillance program was revealed in 2005, formerSenate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-FL) said thatWhite House briefings that he attended in the Vice President’s office failed to disclose that the administration was spying on Americans:

There was no reference made to the fact that we weregoing to…begin unwarranted, illegal — and I think unconstitutional —eavesdropping on American citizens.

Shortly thereafter, Cheney fired back at Graham, arguing, “Well that’s not true. [Graham] knew.” The White House accused him of “misremembering the briefings.”

In a recent interview with ThinkProgress, Sen. Graham told us that,after the controversy erupted in late 2005, the White House providedhim with dates when they alleged Graham had been briefed. Graham saidhe consulted his famous spiral bound notebooks and determined he had not been briefed on these dates:

I mean, I’m not surprised they didn’t brief members of Congress fully (or at least, the Democratic MOCs). But why claim you had when you hadn’t? Particularly when one of them (as TP points out) is a notoriously anal note-taker?

Most interesting is the Administration’s claim that Graham was briefed on April 10, 2002, which his spiral notebooks also disprove. That’s because it was purportedly a meeting with just Graham, and no no one else, after they had briefed Pelosi (in her role as ranking member of HPSCI), Goss, and Shelby.

I’d be inclined to get Pelosi on the record to find out how many of these early briefings she attended. Because I find it curious that the current Speaker may have been the only Dem briefed on key aspects of this program in its early days.