Appearance Alert!
MRC Research Director Rich Noyes on Fox Business Network at 5:55 p.m. ET

To Reinvigorate Rove Matter, CBS & MSNBC Jump on State Dept. Memo --7/22/2005


1. To Reinvigorate Rove Matter, CBS & MSNBC Jump on State Dept. Memo
Picking up on a top of the front page Thursday Washington Post story, "Plame's Identity Marked as Secret: Memo Central to Probe of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst," CBS and MSNBC treated the revelation as a major development. "Coming up on the CBS Evening News, the plot thickens," promised anchor John Roberts. He soon intoned: "There's news tonight involving the federal investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA operative and blew her cover. It turns out a key portion of a two-year-old State Department memo that is now at the center of the controversy was classified, and that could mean leaking it was a crime." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann promised: "And the Karl Rove controversy not going away tonight. New details will be revealed on this program about the State Department memo at the center of the Valerie Plame case."

2. Couric Asks Bill Clinton Whether Karl Rove Should Be Fired
NBC's Katie Couric queried former President Clinton about Karl Rove's situation, as if Clinton is a good judge of ethical standards. On Thursday's Today, in an interview taped earlier, Couric reminded Clinton that "President Bush has said it's a fire-able offense now if a crime was committed" and wondered if "in your view is the ethical violation enough to warrant dismissal?" Clinton suggested a policy he certainly didn't follow when his operatives disparaged Ken Starr: "My view is we should wait until all the facts are in and the prosecutor makes whatever report he's gonna make and all the people who are involved make available whatever information will be made available."

3. ABC Hypes "New Questions" on Roberts, "Disappointment" No Latino?
ABC's Charles Gibson hyped at the top of Thursday's Good Morning America that there are "new questions about President Bush's pick for the Supreme Court, his record, his stand on abortion and why didn't the President pick a woman?" Gibson soon pressed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about whether he was "disappointed that President Bush didn't make history and name the first Hispanic-American to the Court?" Gibson framed the promise that Judge John Roberts will "not legislate from the bench" as a pledge not touch the "settled law" of Roe v Wade: "Does that mean that this will be a justice who will not be overturning settled law, i.e. Roe v. Wade?" On CBS's Early Show, Hannah Storm also wanted to know if Gonzales was "disappointed" and she quizzed him about the Rove case.

4. AP: "Low Morale" for Soldiers in Iraq, WPost: "Morale Improving"
Which way is it? "U.S. Soldiers in Iraq Report Low Morale," declared an AP headline on Thursday, but the Washington Post headlined its article about the very same Army report, "Survey: Morale Improving Among Soldiers in Iraq." A USA Today story from Monday may break the tie and suggest which spin is more accurate. While the media have highlighted months in which new recruiting has fallen short of goals, the July 18 USA Today article reported that "soldiers are re-enlisting at rates ahead of the Army's targets..."

5. Bill Moyers Tasked Hoover's FBI to Find Gays on Goldwater's Staff
Moyers' moralistic mask uncovered. Back in 1964, former Acting Attorney General Laurence Silberman recalled in a Wednesday Wall Street Journal op-ed, then-Lyndon Johnson aide Bill Moyers contacted then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to request that he "do an investigation of [Republican presidential candidate Barry] Goldwater's staff to find...evidence of homosexual activity." When this became public in 1975, Moyers, Silberman revealed, initially claimed the memo with his name on it "was another example of the Bureau salting its files with phony CIA memos." But when Silberman offered to conduct an investigation and promised to "publicly exonerate" Moyers if the memo was proven fake, Moyers conceded that he did make the request.


To Reinvigorate Rove Matter, CBS & MSNBC
Jump on State Dept. Memo

CBS Evening News Picking up on a top of the front page Thursday Washington Post story, "Plame's Identity Marked as Secret: Memo Central to Probe of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst," CBS and MSNBC treated the revelation as a major development. "Coming up on the CBS Evening News, the plot thickens," promised anchor John Roberts. He soon intoned: "There's news tonight involving the federal investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA operative and blew her cover. It turns out a key portion of a two-year-old State Department memo that is now at the center of the controversy was classified, and that could mean leaking it was a crime." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann promised: "And the Karl Rove controversy not going away tonight. New details will be revealed on this program about the State Department memo at the center of the Valerie Plame case."

Roberts teased the July 21 CBS Evening News story: "Coming up on the CBS Evening News, the plot thickens: Was a State Department memo the source for that leak of a CIA agent's name? We'll have the 'Inside Story.'"

Roberts set up the subsequent piece: "There's news tonight involving the federal investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA operative and blew her cover. It turns out a key portion of a two-year-old State Department memo that is now at the center of the controversy was classified, and that could mean leaking it was a crime. Gloria Borger has the 'Inside Story.'"

CBS's Gloria Borger Borger began: "At the time the State Department wrote its memo, the administration's key rationale for war in Iraq was crumbling. No weapons of mass destruction had been found, and some key intelligence used to make the administration's case had proven false. An internal war raged inside the administration over who was to blame. The State Department's 2003 memo was written to make one thing clear: Don't blame us.
"But what now interests a federal grand jury is a single paragraph in that memo identifying Valerie Wilson as a CIA employee and the wife of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who had gone to Africa to investigate Iraq's nuclear capability. Sources describe the paragraph as clearly marked with an unambiguous 'S' for 'secret.' That means knowingly leaking the information is a crime. The memo was widely circulated within the State Department, according to our sources, especially in July 2003 after Joe Wilson publicly challenged the White House intelligence. The day Wilson's charges were made public, aides at the State Department gave then-Secretary of State Colin Powell a copy of the memo. He took it with him on a week-long trip to Africa with the President.
"Was the memo the original source for the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity to reporters? And if so, who did it? And did that person know that Wilson's wife was an undercover agent? The memo did not identify her as one. Karl Rove has admitted to discussing Wilson's wife with at least one reporter. But Rove's attorney says that the first time Rove saw or even heard about the State Department memo was when investigators showed it to him.
"The grand jury is expected to meet again tomorrow. But the legal experts we've talked to say that the special prosecutor may actually be focusing in on charges of perjury rather than the original crime of leaking classified information, John."
Roberts: "Keeps going in different directions. Gloria Borger in Washington. Thanks."

The MRC's Ken Shepherd noticed that in their story Post reporters Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei acknowledged, in reference to the paragraph mentioning "Valerie Wilson," that: "Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said."

For the July 21 Post article in full: www.washingtonpost.com

MSNBC's Olbermann, the MRC's Brad Wilmouth noticed, also jumped on the story, teasing at the top of Thursday's Countdown: "Another piece in the CIA leak story. The State Department memo that identified the agent was marked 'S' for 'secret.'"

Before a commercial break he offered this plug: "And the Karl Rove controversy not going away tonight. New details will be revealed on this program about the State Department memo at the center of the Valerie Plame case. Secret, it said? It said much more than that. You are watching Countdown on MSNBC."

Another plug for the upcoming segment: "The Valerie Plame probe: New information that anybody in the government who saw the memo about her CIA work should have known it was secret. Why? Because the memo was marked 'S.' At least 'S.' Maybe more. See if you can guess what 'S' might have meant."

At 8:34pm EDT, Olbermann finally got to his payoff: "Who blew the secret identity of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame to the media is far from being firmly established. But that he or she absolutely should have known they were leaking secret information seems tonight to have become pretty much unshakeable fact. Our third story in the Countdown, the State Department memo with her name on it also was marked with a big letter 'S.' In one of our government's few instances of clarity and transparency, 'S' stands for secret. There is, in fact, news developing right now that the terminology is even more emphatic and obvious than just the word 'secret.'
"John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal will break that part of the story for us in just a moment. The Journal first reported the 'S is for secret' part on Tuesday. The Washington Post expanded the story today, noting that the classified memorandum refers only to the agent with the blown cover as 'Valerie Wilson.' It also added that the attorney for White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove claims Rove had not seen the memo when he discussed Mrs. Wilson's job with reporter Matt Cooper of Time magazine, that Rove only saw it when, quoting his lawyer, 'people in the special prosecutor's office showed it to him.' The document was written June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. It was drafted for Undersecretary of State Mark Grossmann. Its primary purpose, to explain why State did not believe that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium from the African nation of Niger. The memo went to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell on July 7, 2003. That same day, Mr. Powell left for Africa aboard Air Force One with the President, and, seven days after that, Robert Novak outed Plame as a CIA operative in his column. As promised, Wall Street Journal national political editor John Harwood, who contributed to his publication's 'S is for secret' story, and now has an even bigger one from tomorrow's Wall Street Journal. John, good evening."
John Harwood: "Hey, Keith, how are you?"
Olbermann: "Pretty good. The marking was even stronger than 'secret' on this memo?"
Harwood: "Keith, my colleague Anne Marie Squeo, who broke the story two days ago that this memo had been clearly marked that it was sensitive, not to be shared, is reporting tonight for tomorrow's Wall Street Journal, that the memo was actually classified by the government as 'top secret,' which is a clear indication to anybody at a senior level that it shouldn't be shared. And, more specifically, the passage in the memo that refers to Valerie Plame under her married name of 'Valerie Wilson' and her role in this whole thing was marked...'SNF,' 'Secret No Foreign,' meaning it should not be shared even with foreign intelligence agencies that are friendly to the United States. So that was a special designation on this memo that was another obvious tip-off to people not to circulate this information."
Olbermann: "So if you've been in the government more than five minutes and you read a document that says 'top secret, do not share with foreigners,' in essence, does that necessarily also mean 'do not share with other Americans'?"
Harwood: "Well, I think the fact that it had the 'S' for secret overall and its classification was 'top secret' is a very clear indication. Now, we have to say that that is not the only way that members of the Bush administration or members of the White House staff could have learned about Valerie Plame and her role in this. And, in fact, as you mentioned in the set-up piece, Karl Rove, through his lawyer, has said the first time he ever saw this document was when he was showed it during the process of this investigation."
Olbermann: "But anybody who read this memo, then saw a big 'TS' next to the two sentences that referred to Valerie Plame, Wilson's work for the CIA, 'TS' for 'top secret,' that's not rocket science, but 'TS' for 'top secret,' does that also legally mean 'classified'? Is leaking something marked 'secret' or 'top secret' a crime by itself?"
Harwood: "Well, leaking classified information, Keith, is a crime. Unfortunately, it's the kind of thing that happens fairly often in the government, so that's not the crime that Patrick Fitzgerald's investigating. He's investigating the more serious crime, which has to do with the knowing outing of a covert agent. And that's what Valerie Plame, we believe that Valerie Plame had that status with the U.S. government, so, you know, the leaking of classified information is one of those things that happens. It is rarely prosecuted because a lot of technical violations take place. But in terms of outing a covert agent, that is very rare, and that's why we're having this investigation that's gone on for two years."
Olbermann: "So, again, if you're in the government and you read a document and it says 'TS,' 'top secret,' about Valerie Plame, and you tell somebody else in the government who indeed has not read the document, 'Hey, did you know Joe Wilson's wife works for the CIA?' and the second person goes and tells a reporter, does the crime, can the crime be passed on? Is there a Typhoid Mary in this? Or does it have to be, is that second person not conceivably guilty of any crime?"
Harwood: "Well, we're going to find out. That's one of the things that Patrick Fitzgerald is going to tell us when he finishes his investigation. Arguably, the second person, if he was unaware, A, that she was covert, and B, the classification status of this document, might blamelessly be able to spread that around. But I think one thing we all have to expect of senior government officials is they're going to be discreet with information like this, even if it isn't a crime. So that doesn't necessarily get people off the hook even though it might get some to avoid prosecution."
Olbermann: "Put the labeling of the memo and the importance of the memo in context for us. Does it, John, does it change our understanding of the special prosecutor's targets here, either in terms of suspects or of crimes?"
Harwood: "Well, the memo in a couple of ways changes our understanding of the case. One is, that what officials said under questioning by investigators about their knowledge of this memo is something that is interesting on substantive grounds in terms of how the news got out, but also could be relevant if there's a perjury case that's being built here. Did people say one thing? That's why the prosecutor's subpoenaed phone logs, for example, from Air Force One, which would indicate whether officials might have seen the memo and then passed the information to others, so it is an underscoring of the sensitivity of the information, why the people should not have passed the information, but it isn't the whole answer to the case because there are other ways that people could have learned this information about Valerie Plame, and it could have been circulated. In fact, Karl Rove has said that he, through his lawyer, that he learned some of this information from a reporter."
Olbermann: "John Harwood, national political editor of the Wall Street Journal, tomorrow's editions reporting that the Plame memo was marked not just 'secret,' but 'top secret' and 'SNF,' not for any foreign intelligence services. Great thanks, John. Good night."
Harwood: "You bet."

Olbermann then highlighted comments from Bill Clinton (see item #2 below for more): "And though a string of new revelations in the leak investigation has given ample ammunition to the Democrats in recent weeks, one prominent Democrat deciding to hold his fire. The former President, Bill Clinton, this morning on the Today show."
Bill Clinton Clip #1: "Let me say I've been through some of these things. My view is we should wait until all the facts are in and the prosecutor makes whatever report he's going to make and all the people who are involved make available whatever information will be made available."
Clinton Clip #2: "It was wrong to reveal a patriotic CIA agent's identity to punish her husband, a patriotic career diplomat, for telling the truth instead of telling a lie. Now, that was not right. But before we all say what should be done and to whom it should be done, we need to have all the facts."

Olbermann wrapped up with a plug for his Friday night guest: "One promotional advisory on this story. Our special guest on tomorrow night's edition of Countdown, his first reactions to Mr. Bush's statement, the reports that the document was marked 'secret,' 'top secret,' Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the husband of the outed CIA agent, Valerie Plame, 8pm and Midnight, Eastern; 5 and 9pm Pacific tomorrow here on Countdown on MSNBC."

Couric Asks Bill Clinton Whether Karl
Rove Should Be Fired

NBC's Katie Couric & Bill Clinton NBC's Katie Couric queried former President Clinton about Karl Rove's situation, as if Clinton is a good judge of ethical standards. On Thursday's Today, in an interview taped earlier, Couric reminded Clinton that "President Bush has said it's a fire-able offense now if a crime was committed" and wondered if "in your view is the ethical violation enough to warrant dismissal?" Clinton suggested a policy he certainly didn't follow when his operatives disparaged Ken Starr: "My view is we should wait until all the facts are in and the prosecutor makes whatever report he's gonna make and all the people who are involved make available whatever information will be made available."

Couric set up the July 21 Today session, caught by the MRC's Geoff Dickens: "Now to President Bill Clinton. Since leaving office five years ago he has spent a prodigious amount of time on the road for his foundation promoting AIDS awareness and prevention. Earlier this week I spoke with him from Johannesburg, South Africa, part of his six nation tour of Africa. I began by asking him why Africa has been more affected by AIDS than any other place in the world."

Couric's fourth question: "President Clinton as you well know President Bush has been under fire recently because Karl Rove allegedly released the identity of a CIA agent to reporters. President Bush has said it's a fire-able offense now if a crime was committed, but in your view is the ethical violation enough to warrant dismissal?"

From South Africa, Clinton responded: "Well of course that's a decision that the President has to make about the people who work for him but let me say I've been through some of these things. My view is we should wait until all the facts are in and the prosecutor makes whatever report he's gonna make and all the people who are involved make available whatever information will be made available. I know that Valerie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson is a good man, a career diplomat who voted for my opponent in 1992. He voted for former President Bush. But I think what happened to her and what's happened to him were terrible."

Couric didn't remind Clinton of how he reacted to investigations, but she did at least hit him with a Republican talking point: "What do you make of Republicans who claim that Democrats would like nothing better than to see Karl Rove out of the picture because he's such a brilliant political strategist?"
Clinton acknowledged the point: "Oh there's something to that. He, he's a brilliant political strategist and he's proved a brilliantly effective at destroying Democrats personally. I mean they've gotten away with murder and he's really good at it. He's good at, at, at playing psychological head games that damage our side. But, you know we're supposed to be good enough to beat that. I don't think we should wish anybody ill, personally but this matter should be handled on the merits. Whatever the facts are it was wrong to reveal a patriotic CIA agent's identity to punish her husband, a patriotic career diplomat for telling the truth instead of telling a lie. Now that, that was not right. But before we all say what should be done and to whom it should be done we need to have all the facts."

ABC Hypes "New Questions" on Roberts,
"Disappointment" No Latino?

ABC's Charles Gibson & Attorney General Alberto Gonzales ABC's Charles Gibson hyped at the top of Thursday's Good Morning America that there are "new questions about President Bush's pick for the Supreme Court, his record, his stand on abortion and why didn't the President pick a woman?" Gibson soon pressed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about whether he was "disappointed that President Bush didn't make history and name the first Hispanic-American to the Court?" Gibson framed the promise that Judge John Roberts will "not legislate from the bench" as a pledge not touch the "settled law" of Roe v Wade: "Does that mean that this will be a justice who will not be overturning settled law, i.e. Roe v. Wade?" On CBS's Early Show, Hannah Storm also wanted to know if Gonzales was "disappointed" and she quizzed him about the Rove case.

Kate Snow provided a look at Roberts' visits to Senators on Wednesday and then noted: "Interest groups and Senate staffers are pouring over Roberts' record. In two years on the federal bench he supported states' rights in a case about an endangered toad in California, gone against criminals complaining about their treatment, upheld the President's power in fighting the war on terror....Liberal groups warned Roberts might tear down abortion rights, but it's unclear how he personally feels. The White House says the President has not asked. On Wednesday, one critique of President Bush, Sandra Day O'Connor, the retiring justice, said she's disappointed the President didn't choose a woman. O'Connor went on to say that she's not disappointed in Roberts, himself. She said she thinks he's first rate. And, Charlie, with so many Democrats seeming to agree with that assessment, that he's first rate, this may not be a drag-down, knock-down kind of fight like we thought it might in the Senate."

Gibson's questions to Gonzales, as taken down by the MRC's Brian Boyd:

-- "Now, more on the political battle over President Bush's new Supreme Court nominee. Joining us from Washington is the Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales. General Gonzales, good to have you with us...Let me ask you about diversity on the Court. Let me have you put yourself aside for just a moment. Are you disappointed that President Bush didn't make history and name the first Hispanic-American to the Court?"

-- "And I know you would feel that way, very supportive of the President. I'm just asking for a personal reaction. Are you personally, just wish that he would have named an Hispanic-American?"

-- "The President has said John Roberts would not legislate from the bench. He didn't want a nominee who would legislate from the bench. Does that mean that this will be a justice who will not be overturning settled law, i.e. Roe v. Wade?"

-- "Some Democrats are asking for memos to be turned over, internal documents that Judge Roberts may have written when he was Deputy Solicitor General at the Justice Department. Will the Justice Department give the Senators what they want?"

Over on CBS's Early Show, Gonzales also appeared from Washington, DC and the MRC's Ken Shepherd tracked the questions posed by Hannah Storm:

-- "There had been a lot of buzz about you, Attorney General, being a top candidate and thus making history as the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Are you disappointed?"

-- "I'd like to ask you about what Sandra Day O'Connor said about Roberts's nomination. She said, 'I am disappointed, in a sense, to see the percentage of the women on our court drop by 50 percent, but I can't be disappointed in the quality of the person nominated. He's first rate.' Why didn't the President nominate a woman, and what do you think about her comments in that regard?"

-- "A real hot button issue in the confirmation process does figure to be abortion. Now, Roberts has argued that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but he's also called Roe v. Wade the settled law of the land. Do you or the President know where he stands on abortion?"

-- "But during the confirmation hearings, this figures to come up. How much should each side try to get Roberts on the record about an issue like abortion?"

-- "I want to turn to the controversy surrounding the President's deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, did he break the law in revealing the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame?"
Gonzales: "Well, Hannah, first of all, I'm recused from that investigation. Let me make that point very, very clear. But we have an ongoing investigation, it's been going on for some time. Pat Fitzgerald, I have every confidence that Mister Fitzgerald will uncover all the facts and at the end of the day, we'll know whether or not anyone engaged in conduct that's unlawful."
Storm: "Regardless of whether or not he broke the law, did Mister Rove act inappropriately?"
Gonzales: "Well, that's for others to decide, Hannah. At the Department of Justice, we look to see whether or not somebody's engaged in criminal wrongdoing. And that's, that's, that's the purpose and focus of the investigation by Mister Fitzgerald."

AP: "Low Morale" for Soldiers in Iraq,
WPost: "Morale Improving"

Which way is it? "U.S. Soldiers in Iraq Report Low Morale," declared an AP headline on Thursday, but the Washington Post headlined its article about the very same Army report, "Survey: Morale Improving Among Soldiers in Iraq." A USA Today story from Monday may break the tie and suggest which spin is more accurate. While the media have highlighted months in which new recruiting has fallen short of goals, the July 18 USA Today article reported that "soldiers are re-enlisting at rates ahead of the Army's targets..."

An excerpt from the top of the July 21 AP dispatch from Washington, DC by Robert Burns:

A majority of U.S. soldiers in Iraq say morale is low, according to an Army report that finds psychological stress is weighing particularly heavily on National Guard and Reserve troops.

Still, soldiers' mental health has improved from the early months of the insurgency, and suicides have declined sharply, the report said. Also, substantially fewer soldiers had to be evacuated from Iraq for mental health problems last year.

The Army sent a team of mental health specialists to Iraq and Kuwait late last summer to assess conditions and measure progress in implementing programs designed to fix mental health problems discovered during a similar survey of troops a year earlier. Its report, dated Jan. 30, 2005, was released Wednesday.

The initial inquiry was triggered in part by an unusual surge in suicides among soldiers in Iraq in July 2003. Wednesday's report said the number of suicides in Iraq and Kuwait declined from 24 in 2003 to nine last year.

A suicide prevention program was begun for soldiers in Iraq at the recommendation of the 2003 assessment team.

The overall assessment said 13 percent of soldiers in the most recent study screened positive for a mental health problem, compared with 18 percent a year earlier. Symptoms of acute or post-traumatic stress remained the top mental health problem, affecting at least 10 percent of all soldiers checked in the latest survey.

In the anonymous survey, 17 percent of soldiers said they had experienced moderate or severe stress or problems with alcohol, emotions or their families. That compares with 23 percent a year earlier....

END of Excerpt

For the AP story in its entirety: news.yahoo.com

For a PDF of the Army's report: www.armymedicine.army.mil

An excerpt from the start of the July 21 Washington Post article by reporters Josh White and Ann Scott Tyson:

Morale among U.S. soldiers in Iraq has improved since the start of the war in 2003, and the soldiers' suicide rate dropped by more than half last year, according to an Army mental health survey released yesterday.

The Army's second Mental Health Advisory Team report paints an improving picture of how soldiers are handling their tours and how medical personnel are dealing with mental health problems. The team surveyed more than 2,000 soldiers from last August to October, and concluded that aggressive efforts to improve mental health care and to make soldiers aware of combat stresses have been successful.

A majority of soldiers fighting in Iraq, however, reported that morale is still a problem, with 54 percent saying that their unit morale is "low" or "very low," and only 9 percent reporting "high" or "very high" morale. During the first survey in late summer 2003, 72 percent of soldiers reported low morale.

The survey also reported that when soldiers were asked about their own morale -- as distinct from their unit's morale -- there was marked improvement from 2003 to 2004: 52 percent described their morale as low or very low in the first survey, and that number dropped to 36 percent in 2004.

"There have been substantial improvements made in the quality of life in theater, particularly access to air conditioned sleeping quarters, better facilities . . . better food and [dining facilities], and improved communication home through telephone and e-mail," according to the report, dated Jan. 30, 2005. "These likely help buffer the negative effects of combat."...

END of Excerpt

For the Post story in full: www.washingtonpost.com

Monday's USA Today placed on its front page a little-marked trend. "Soldiers re-enlist beyond U.S. goal: Troops help offset recruiting shortfall," read the July 18 headline. An excerpt from the story by Dave Moniz:

Soldiers are re-enlisting at rates ahead of the Army's targets, even as overall recruiting is suffering after two years of the Iraq war.

The high re-enlistment rates would make up about one-third of the Army's projected 12,000-troop shortfall in recruiting, although the re-enlistments won't address some key personnel vacancies, such as military police and bomb-disposal experts.

Army officials attribute the strong re-enlistment rates to unprecedented cash bonuses and a renewed sense of purpose in fighting terrorism. Some of the record bonuses are tax-free if soldiers re-enlist while in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Re-enlistment bonuses range from as little as $1,000 to as much as $150,000, depending on the type of job and length of re-enlistment. The $150,000 bonuses are offered only to senior special operations commandos who agree to stay in the military for up to six more years. The average bonus is $10,000, said Col. Debbra Head, who monitors Army retention at the Pentagon.

From Oct. 1 through June, the Army had re-enlisted 53,120 soldiers, 6% ahead of its goal of about 50,000 for that period. At that pace, the Army would finish the fiscal year 3,850 troops ahead of its target of 64,162.

Re-enlistment rates the past three years have been at least 6% above the service's goals for the 500,000-member active Army. There are about 105,000 Army soldiers in Iraq, including members of the National Guard and Reserve.

"The biggest thing is that soldiers believe in what they are doing," Head said....

END of Excerpt

For the USA Today story in full: www.usatoday.com

Bill Moyers Tasked Hoover's FBI to Find
Gays on Goldwater's Staff

FNC's Brit Hume Moyers' moralistic mask uncovered. Back in 1964, former Acting Attorney General Laurence Silberman recalled in a Wednesday Wall Street Journal op-ed, then-Lyndon Johnson aide Bill Moyers contacted then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to request that he "do an investigation of [Republican presidential candidate Barry] Goldwater's staff to find...evidence of homosexual activity." When this became public in 1975, Moyers, Silberman revealed, initially claimed the memo with his name on it "was another example of the Bureau salting its files with phony CIA memos." But when Silberman offered to conduct an investigation and promised to "publicly exonerate" Moyers if the memo was proven fake, Moyers conceded that he did make the request.

Silberman's disclosure, highlighted Thursday night by FNC's Brit Hume in his "Grapevine" segment on Special Report with Brit Hume, came in the July 20 op-ed about what Silberman found in Hoover's files of dirt on politicians.

An excerpt from "Hoover's Institution: Anecdotes from the FBI crypt -- and lessons on how to win the war," Silberman's op-ed:

I recently completed a rewarding year as co-chairman of President Bush's commission on intelligence, and I propose to discuss our recommendations regarding the FBI in light of my own unique experience with J. Edgar Hoover....

I became deputy attorney general in early 1974, after the "Saturday night massacre." Having seen printed rumors of the "secret and confidential files" of J. Edgar Hoover (who had died in 1972), I asked Clarence Kelly, the very straight and honorable director of the bureau, whether they existed. He assured me that they did not. If they ever did they must have been destroyed.

I was shocked then, when on Jan. 19, 1975, as acting attorney general, I read a front page story in the Washington Post confirming the existence of the files. The story pointed out that the files contained embarrassing material collected on congressmen. When I confronted Kelly, he was initially mystified. He then realized the Post must be referring to files in his outer office, in plain sight, which he had inherited but never examined. Sure enough, they were the notorious secret and confidential files of J. Edgar Hoover.

The House Judiciary Committee demanded I testify about those files, so I was obliged to read them. Accompanied by only one FBI official, I read virtually all these files in three weekends. It was the single worst experience of my long governmental service. Hoover had indeed tasked his agents with reporting privately to him any bits of dirt on figures such as Martin Luther King, or their families. Hoover sometimes used that information for subtle blackmail to ensure his and the bureau's power....

We told the committee that the bureau had sought, at the direction of a political figure, to gather unfavorable information on his opponent during an election campaign. Rep. Herman Badillo of New York pressed me to admit that it was an investigation of Allard Lowenstein, an antiwar candidate running against Rep. John Rooney, the powerful chairman of an appropriations panel with jurisdiction over the FBI. I repeatedly denied that and finally said it involved the presidential campaign of 1964. Shortly thereafter, Don Edwards, the chairman, terminated the hearing. But reporters dug out more facts.

Only a few weeks before the 1964 election, a powerful presidential assistant, Walter Jenkins, was arrested in a men's room in Washington. Evidently, the president was concerned that Barry Goldwater would use that against him in the election. Another assistant, Bill Moyers, was tasked to direct Hoover to do an investigation of Goldwater's staff to find similar evidence of homosexual activity. Mr. Moyers' memo to the FBI was in one of the files.

When the press reported this, I received a call in my office from Mr. Moyers. Several of my assistants were with me. He was outraged; he claimed that this was another example of the Bureau salting its files with phony CIA memos. I was taken aback. I offered to conduct an investigation, which if his contention was correct, would lead me to publicly exonerate him. There was a pause on the line and then he said, "I was very young. How will I explain this to my children?" And then he rang off. I thought to myself that a number of the Watergate figures, some of whom the department was prosecuting, were very young, too.

Other presidents, according to those files, misused the bureau, although never Truman and Eisenhower. But Johnson clearly was the most demanding....

END of Excerpt

For the op-ed in full, as posted by the Wall Street Journal's free site, OpinionJournal.com: www.opinionjournal.com

-- Brent Baker