Sunday morning viewing

Christian Amanpour's "This Week" covered one important & terribly sad issue: Army suicides. But it struck me that in her interview with vice chief of staff of the army, General Peter Chiarelli, who is in charge of solving this problem, I heard more from Amanpour than I did from Chiarelli. Not good for an interviewer.


I forgot about 'Face The Nation' & felt like I had 'been there, done that' with David Gregory's "Meet the Press" so I didn't bother.


On the other hand, Chris Matthews and his merry band voted 7 to 5 that Hillary Clinton would run as Obama's Vice President in 2012, switching jobs with Joe Biden.


And then Mathews ran some absolutely charming stories told by Bob Smith, the former White House pianist who entertained presidents from Nixon through Clinton.


Mr. Smith told the story about Richard Nixon used to order aboard empty bottles of very expensive vintage wines when entertaining on the Presidential yacht, Sequoia.. Then, before his guests arrived, he would stand at the bar with a funnel, filling the bottles with swill akin to Carlo Rossi. And when all his guests later rose in a toast, relishing their fine wines, he'd wink at the piano player as if to say: "Got 'em!".


Cary Grant ducked out of a White House dinner to sit down & play a few tunes with Mr. Smith. When dinner was announced, Cary Grant, who had been standing next to the piano with his cocktail, didn't follow the crowd into the next room. 'Mr. Grant', said the piano player, 'aren't you hungry? Don't you want any dinner?' 'No', Mr. Grant replied, explaining he was tired of everything, including being Cary Grant. All he wanted to do was to be Archie Leach (his real name), to listen to Cole Porter music & to reminisce -- which is exactly what he did for the next hour or so.


And finally, Mr. Smith told the following anecdote. After Bush senior won the presidency, the entire Bush clan came back to the White House to celebrate. And as Smith explained it, he recognized everyone: sister Dorothy, brothers Jeb, Neil, etc. etc. & then there was this guy who sat in the corner....


Chris Wallace of Fox News had an interesting interview with Ted Olsen, a conservative, who successfully argued for the rights of gays to marry (in opposition to California's Prop 8) before a gay, Republican Federal Judge. It was Olsen's contention, as a conservative, that this right is granted under the 14th amendment to the constitution & that the judge was anything but an activist judge; more to the point: he was following the original meanings of the 14th amendment.


It was clear that in the interview that Chris Wallace was totally outmatched by Ted Olsen who is used to this question and answer format, having argued so many cases before the Supreme Court. Chris Wallace tipped his hat to Olsen at the end of the interview.


Fareed Zakaria, of CNN, had two interesting interviews: one with Hamid Gul, the 74 year old former Pakistani ISA chief who is named in the WikiLeaks documents as plotting with the Taliban against Allied interests, particularly the United States. But as Gul pointed out in the interview, the U.S. pays for information & the Afghanies, a 'wily bunch who will do anything for money', simply manufacture information to get the money. Given the poverty in Afghanistan, this probably makes some sense. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine that these tips aren't well corroborated. However, I was surprised to hear Gul TOTALLY dismiss Hamid Karzai and call the Afghanies a 'treacherous' bunch. It seems there's no love lost there. Gul is credited with helping to organize the  Mujaheddin to fight against the, then, Soviet Union.


The second interview was with Serbia's well spoken, 35 year old Foreign Minister, Vuk Jeremic,  (someone I knew nothing about) who stated categorically that the current government is committed to solving all their problems with breakaway Kosovo diplomatically and legally; dismissing any & all military options as a thing of the past. If this is so, it would be a tremendous advance in Balkan politics.


This was one of those Sunday mornings when I actually felt I had learned a thing or two watching the boob tube.

NYT > Gates Tightens Military Media Rules. I ask: Do you think this is this good or bad for the USA?

I understand why this review was undertaken. I worked in news for 20+ years but I'm not sure I have a definite answer to my own question although I lean towards journalists and away from power centers. I cite the mis-information proffered by BP during the worst oil spill in history. Was it ultimately important to reiterate the dominance & respect for civilian leadership over the military? Anyway, maybe you have an opinion & will post a comment as I'd be interested in your take. 

By THOM SHANKER
Published: July 2, 2010

WASHINGTON — Nine days after a four-star general was relieved of command for comments made to Rolling Stone magazine, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued orders on Friday tightening the reins on officials dealing with the news media.

The memorandum requires top-level Pentagon and military leaders to notify the office of the Defense Department’s assistant secretary for public affairs “prior to interviews or any other means of media and public engagement with possible national or international implications.”

Just as the removal of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal from command in Afghanistan was viewed as President Obama’s reassertion of civilian control of the military, so Mr. Gates’s memo on “Interaction With the Media” was viewed as a reassertion by civilian public affairs specialists of control over the military’s contacts with the news media.

Senior officials involved in preparing the three-page memo said work on it had begun well before the uproar that followed Rolling Stone’s profile of General McChrystal. But they acknowledged that the controversy, and the firing of one of the military’s most influential commanders, served to emphasize Mr. Gates’s determination to add more discipline to the Defense Department’s interactions with the media.

“I have said many times that we must strive to be as open, accessible and transparent as possible,” Mr. Gates wrote in the memo, which was sent to senior Pentagon civilian officials, the nation’s top military officer, each of the armed-services secretaries and the commanders of the regional war-fighting headquarters. “At the same time, I am concerned that the department has grown lax in how we engage with the media, often in contravention of established rules and procedures.”

The memo by Mr. Gates, a former C.I.A. director, also demanded greater adherence to secrecy standards, issuing a stern warning against the release of classified information: “Leaking of classified information is against the law, cannot be tolerated and will, when proven, lead to the prosecution of those found to be engaged in such activity.”

A copy of the unclassified memo by Mr. Gates was provided to The New York Times by an official who was not authorized to release it. Douglas B. Wilson, the new assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, and Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, verified its content.

Mr. Gates’s memo “is based primarily on his view that we owe the media and we owe ourselves engagement by those who have full knowledge of the situations at hand,” Mr. Wilson said.

Mr. Gates was particularly concerned that civilian and military officials speaking to reporters sometimes had only a parochial view of a national security issue under discussion. The new orders, Mr. Wilson said, were devised to “make sure that anybody and everybody who does engage has as full a picture as possible and the most complete information possible.”

The repercussions of the Rolling Stone profile have included heightened concerns that military officers will become warier of the press — and it is expected that many officers will read the new memo as an official warning to restrict access to reporters.

Mr. Wilson and Mr. Morrell rejected those assumptions, saying Mr. Gates would remain committed to having the Pentagon work closely with reporters.

“From the moment he came into the building, this secretary has said that to treat the press as an enemy is self-defeating,” Mr. Morrell said. “That attitude has been reflected in his tenure: he has been incredibly accommodating, incredibly forthright and incredibly cooperative with the news media. That said, he thinks we as a giant institution have become too undisciplined in how we approach our communications with the press corps.”

But correspondents who cover national security issues, a realm that routinely requires delving into the classified world, have come to rely on unofficial access to senior leaders for guidance and context — and for information when policies or missions may be going awry.

Officials involved in drafting Mr. Gates’s memo cited several recent developments as central to his thinking. They included disclosure of the internal debate during the administration’s effort to develop a new policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, similar public exposure of internal deliberations over the Pentagon budget and weapons procurement, and, among others, an article in The Times describing a memorandum on Iran policy written by Mr. Gates and sent to a small circle of national security aides.

On behalf of the military, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was consulted during the drafting of the memo on media relations and “fully supports the secretary’s intent,” said Capt. John Kirby, the chairman’s spokesman.

He cited Admiral Mullen’s visit to Kabul, Afghanistan, last weekend, in which the admiral told American military officers and embassy personnel that “we must continue to tell our story — we just need to do it smartly, and in a coordinated fashion.”

Mr. Gates’s memo also orders senior civilian and military leaders to coordinate their release of official Defense Department information that may have national or international implications, and to ensure that their staff members have the experience and perspective “to responsibly fulfill the obligations of coordinating media engagements.”

The memo is expected to reanimate the professional public-affairs cadre among the Pentagon’s civilian and military staffs, who have made no secret that they have felt challenged by the growing numbers of contractors hired for “strategic communications” issues. It was one such contractor who brokered Rolling Stone’s profile of General McChrystal.

CIA director Leon Panetta > 50-100 Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Does this make you wonder what we are doing there? I wonder.

Leon Panetta gave his first-ever network news interview as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency on Sunday. Panetta, appearing on "This Week" with Jake Tapper, broke some serious news. Here's the transcript. Below a revelations from Panetta's interview.

Only '50 to 100' Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan Asked how many al-Qaeda were in Afghanistan, Panetta responded, "I think at most, we're looking at 50 to 100, maybe less. It's in that vicinity. There's no question that the main location of Al Qaeda is in the tribal areas of Pakistan." Liberal blogger Marcy Wheeler notes that the U.S. plans to invest up to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. "Even Afghan war fans admit that it costs $1 million a year -- on top of things like salary -- to support a US service member in Afghanistan. ... So 1,000 US troops per al Qaeda member, at a cost of $1 million each. That's $1 billion a year we spend for each al Qaeda member to fight our war in Afghanistan."

Added 2010/07/05: Fareed Zakaria criticizes 'disproportionate' Afghanistan war on CNN. Click here for Huffington Post article which includes video from CNN.